Talk:Western world/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Why is a small country like NZ getting representation as a western country and not the entire large region of Latin America (despite saying the New World is the west)?

As I mentinoed before in the previous tab, each region of the western world needs to be given representation. Populations need to be taken into account. If we've already established that all countries of the New World or The Americas are western, than why would two countries in the Australian continent be mentioned? And not populated ones like Brazil or Mexico? The Australian continent should be given representation in one country. The largest one of the region: Australia. In North America, it should be the United States. In Latin America, it should be Brazil and/or Mexico (I say and to represent the large amount of native speakers of native western language speakers). In the West Indies, it should be Haiti (because they have the highest population) and/or Jamaica (they are the largest of the native English-speaking West Indies).

With all due respect, the feeling I get regarding Latin America and the West Indies being included apart of the west by users on this site is Well, there is enough evidence to support why they'd be western, but I don't want to show them as a representation of it.

I am saying this because I anticipate someone deleting or revising this without an explanation. I will change it back unless you are able to provide citation that can show that these countries actually aren't western. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the citation provided, those countries he mentioned as western were countries we already knew of. He didn't exclude Latin America and the West Indies (meaning we shouldn't either). Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually did discuss it prior to the revision under the "Since when is Latin America not apart of the western world?" heading, which seemed like the appropriate heading to discuss it. After your post though I can see how it might have been overlooked given the size of this talk page. I re-posted my comments below.

• Generally when speaking of the "Western World" it is usually in reference to culture. If we are talking about geography then South America would be included and most of Europe would not. The Western World or Western Civilization are countries where their cultural beliefs and customs were largely influenced by Greco-Roman beliefs. Eastern Europe and South America are generally not considered part of Western Civilization. According to the Princeton University website [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn], Western Civilization is defined as Western Europe, the United States and Canada. This corresponds with my own college studies on the subject. Although linguists and religion are certainly good indicators of culture, they are not definitive. Latin America has been heavily influenced by Mesoamerican culture and is its own distinct cultural group. Eastern Europe, although part of the European Union is also considered a distinct cultural group. The United States and Canada were not heavily influenced by the native populations as they were largely wiped out by the Western Europeans. Although the hypothesis that the "Western World" should be considered countries that speak European languages, are Christian and were otherwise heavily influenced by "European countries" is a solid one, I did not see anything in the references that stated South American countries are considered part of the Western World. On the contrary, the references tend to indicate Latin America and Eastern Europe are not included in Western Civilization [^ "The World of Civilizations". S02.middlebury.edu. Retrieved 2011-05-06.;^ Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).]. It appears that the current consensus of cultural scholars is that Latin America and Eastern Europe are distinct cultural groups and should not be included as part of the Western World. Also this article should probably be combined with the "Western Civilization" article, unless they are being considered as two separate ideas. Currently though they both have the exact same references, discussion and similar topics. Legion211 (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Legion, Do you have any sources that support your statement regarding Eastern Europe? (Eastern Europe, although part of the European Union is also considered a distinct cultural group) It's not an attack... I'm just interested in getting more information about it. Arcillaroja (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, and I would not consider any polite discussion an attack. Did you check the references I mentioned in my post? Princeton University website (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&s=Western+culture, and also two of the references listed at the bottom of the article, from the Other Views section of the article (^ "The World of Civilizations". S02.middlebury.edu. Retrieved 2011-05-06. and ^ Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).). I believe those references show contemporary scholars do not consider Latin America or Eastern Europe as belonging to "Western Civilization". The only references that seem to address what the article's topic is appear to be in the Other Views section. If there is a debate among scholars, as the Other Views heading in the article seems to suggest, then both views should be presented; however, the Other Views section seems to be more in line with the consensus of contemporaries in the field, rather then a widespread opposing view.

• Also the references cited in the first paragraph of the article, ^ a b Thompson, William; Joseph Hickey (2005). Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson. 0-205-41365-X. ^ a b "Embassy of Brazil - Ottawa". Brasembottawa.org. Retrieved 2011-05-06.^ a b Falcoff, Mark. "Chile Moves On". AEI. Retrieved 2011-05-06. do not appear to make any claim that those regions (including Eastern Europe) are considered part of Western Civilization, as the paragraph contends. The Brazilian website and the "Chile Moves On" article both show that Brazil and Chile were "heavily influenced" by Western Civilization, but make no assertion that they are part of it. The text "Society in Focus" appears to be largely about individual interactions in life http://www.ablongman.com/samplechapter/020541365X.pdf; however, I only have limited access to the text. If there is a specific section in the text that covers the extent of the "Western World" then those pages should be cited in the reference per uniformed citation styles, and Wikipedia Wikipedia:Citing sources. This article seems to be more of a thesis than an encyclopedia article in that the author seems to be making a case for why regions should be considered part of the "Western World" rather then summarizing the accepted consensus of contemporary scholars in the field. Legion211 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since this subject seems contentious I wanted to post here before editing the article to open a discussion to allow any evidence counter to what I presented. In addition to the above evidence from my two previous paragraphs a quick internet search also returned this article, http://www.mmisi.org/ir/39_01_2/kurth.pdf. All the articles I have presented mention or show that Latin America and Eastern Europe are their own cultural group and region, not included in the term of the "Western World". Also the "Western World" seems to be a synonym for "Western Civilization", which has now been redirected to "Western Culture". Can anyone provide a definition for the "Western World" that is separate and distinct from "Western Civilization"? These articles should be considered for combination. At the very least I am going to edit this article to include only the areas deemed part of the "Western World" by the sources I have already indicated unless someone presents evidence to the contrary. Legion211 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments that Latin America should be considered part of the "Western World" are logical; however, I have not seen evidence that scholars in this field consider it as such. On the contrary all the online sources that address the topic specifically tend to exclude Latin America.

I included Australia and New Zealand because they are mentioned in the references.

Which specific reference are you referring to? If you have additional information I have overlooked I certainly would like to be corrected. If you are referring to the cite I added, the author does exclude Latin America. He states that it was influenced heavily buy Western Civilization but that it is something altogether different. Legion211 (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at the Princeton definition. It says western Europe and North America. There are two things about this quote we shouldn't neglect. One, it doesn't include Australia and New Zealand which seem to always be included in the west. Two, North America includes several Latin American and West Indian countries. Central America or Meso-America is not it's own continent and is not given such status by most of the world. We should assume this definition includes Mexico, central America and the Caribbean as North America (because they haven't said otherwise).

Generally when speaking of the "Western World" it is usually in reference to culture. If we are talking about geography then South America would be included and most of Europe would not.

Eastern Europe and South America are generally not considered part of Western Civilization. According to the Princeton University website [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn], Western Civilization is defined as Western Europe, the United States and Canada.

Most wouldn't argue that Eastern Europe is not apart of the west. The only exceptions are Greece, Cyprus (if it counts as eastern Europe), the Baltic countries and perhaps Hungary. All of these countries are the countries of eastern European geographically closest to western Europe though.

Niether Baltic countries, nor Hungary is part of Eastern Europe. Baltic states belong to Northern Europe, Hungary is traditional part of Central Europe. After all, do you really think that my country (Czech republic) does not belong to Western civilization?!! The only true eastern european countries are Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania and arguably eastern Balkan (Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro).

How would it make sense to consider Mexico, Cuba, Guatemala and several Latin American countries not in South America as the west, yet not South America?

This corresponds with my own college studies on the subject.

Many people have done research in this area. I have too. I'm not sure if what you're insisting in your college studies is that Australia, New Zealand and South America aren't apart of the west, yet the parts of Latin America in North America are. You weren't very descriptive there.

Although linguists and religion are certainly good indicators of culture, they are not definitive.

They are objective measures. I would agree though that religion is a bit broad. Practicing Christianity doesn't make one western. Not even western Christianity. Every person in Africa who converted to Christianity in the last century is not now suddenly a westerner.

Linguistics are very objective though when we are talking about native language. As I said before, there are only a small amount of exceptions to significant portions of non-western countries that speak western European languages natively. The only country that arguably predominantly speaks a western European language natively that is not arguably western is Angola (it is not overwhelmingly dominant though). Angolan culture certainly is closer to western culture than other West Africans. They are not western though. There is more of an argument supporting why Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe (permanent Portuguese settled populations, no indigenous population).

Seeing that there is a population of descendants of permanent western European settlers who make up a recognizable part of the population is another objective marker. Humans themselves are the biggest carriers of culture. Even if 20-30% of a population were of these ancestors in a given place (i.e. Spaniards in a highly indigenous part of Latin America), it was capable for their culture (i.e. Spanish language, Catholicism, customs) to make it to the overall population (since they were the hierarchy controlling the resources of those areas).

Latin America has been heavily influenced by Mesoamerican culture and is its own distinct cultural group.

If we are now speaking of Mesoamerica, you should be more discrete in geographically separating it from North America. More importantly though, what objective measure are you using to determine this? There are parts of central America where this is certainly true. Mainly in rural places like rural Guatemala and Honduras. By no coincidence in the areas where an indigenous language is spoken natively. During the 19th and 20th Centuries, the same thing that happened there has happened in the US though. The destroying of rain forests, forcing indigenous peoples to need to relocate and assimilate into the dominant culture.

Eastern Europe, although part of the European Union is also considered a distinct cultural group.

Most of Eastern Europe is not actually apart of the EU. With some exceptions, this statement is accurate.

The only eastern european member states of EU are Romania and Bulgaria. Baltic states belong to Northern Europe, whilst Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia are part of Central Europe.

The United States and Canada were not heavily influenced by the native populations as they were largely wiped out by the Western Europeans.

I mentioned before that humans are the biggest carriers of culture. They are also the biggest ones of destroying or changing culture. You don't need to physically kill someone to change the culture of a people. An example are some Islamicized areas in Africa.

If we were actually speaking genetically though, indigenous Americans and Canadians were not necessarily wiped out. Certainly not the Inuits who despite having a low population cover a vast amount of Canadian territory. You don't even have to speak of isolated people on reservations though. Many Americans throughout the country have small percentages of Native American ancestry. This suggests that many were physically and culturally absorbed.

In Latin America, it was much the same way. The important thing to recognize though is Latin America is a geographically difficult region to generalize. The Caribbean has less present indigenous ancestry than the US or Canada. Unlike in the US and Canada where there are still people with these ethnic identities, there really are no people who have significant amounts of indigenous ancestry in the Caribbean who culturally identify as this.

Although the hypothesis that the "Western World" should be considered countries that speak European languages, are Christian and were otherwise heavily influenced by "European countries" is a solid one, I did not see anything in the references that stated South American countries are considered part of the Western World.

Firstly, please say western European languages because eastern European languages are European too and those aren't the ones we're referring to. Secondly, that is because we have a narrow amount of references (which were not picked randomly). Look at the references there actually are though. One spoke about Brazil's contribution to western art. A Canadian journalist called Colombia the most dangerous country in the west (not exactly accurate, but why was Colombia called the west by him).

It´s sort of cold war era thinking. How long will you divide Europe according to cold war era key?!! Which languages are western european and which are eastern european?!!! If you think, that only Romance and Germanic languages are western european, than what about finnish, greek, maltese or basque? Half of slavic nations (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenians and Croats) traditionally belong to western civilization. So their languages should be considered as western languages (just like finnish or basque).

On the contrary, the references tend to indicate Latin America and Eastern Europe are not included in Western Civilization [^ "The World of Civilizations". S02.middlebury.edu. Retrieved 2011-05-06.;^ Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).

Does it discretely say that? Please provide the quotation (since we can't see the link).

It appears that the current consensus of cultural scholars is that Latin America and Eastern Europe are distinct cultural groups and should not be included as part of the Western World.

According to which scholars and is this actually the quote of a scholar?

I believe those references show contemporary scholars do not consider Latin America or Eastern Europe as belonging to "Western Civilization".

They do not indicate that. The scholars didn't say they didn't consider Latin America, Eastern Europe (or the West Indies) apart of the west. This one definition (of many) gave a brief definition which neglected several regions (including Australia and New Zealand, which you didn't address).

The Brazilian website and the "Chile Moves On" article both show that Brazil and Chile were "heavily influenced" by Western Civilization, but make no assertion that they are part of it.

The quote about Brazil was actually a bit more inclusive than that. What are they apart of if not the west though? Do they just have an extremely similar history to the US, Canada and Australia of high levels of European immigration in the 19th and early 20th Centuries (i.e. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Cuba, Puerto Rico), settler colonization and a native western European language for no reason? By the way, there are parts of South America where indigenous ancestry is similar percentages to the US (Argentina, Uruguay, much of Brazil). If Latin America is not the west than it creates odd questions like what about Puerto Rico (which has a culture distinct from the mainland)?

I know these points are controversial. They are important to consider though. Do you not consider the fact these countries are not as wealthy as the US, Canada or Australia to be a reason people are neglecting them (including scholars)? It is more attractive to focus all attention on the wealthiest regions? Especially if you were from one of thohe wealthier countries? It is like a parent bragging about their child that turned out better off and not talking about the one who didn't.

Go ahead and ask people from developed western countries which Latin American countries they consider western. Or see what their responses is are if you go country by country. I can guarantee they'll either say the wealthiest countries first (i.e. Brazil, Mexico). Or they'll say the whitest Latin American ones (i.e. Argentina, Uruguay).

What objective measures are these people using to judge this? Wealth and race. They see being western as synonymous to being wealthy and/or white. Do you know how many people try to claim Japan is western because they are wealthy? How is culture related to wealth? It isn't. Do you know how many people assume that Russia and parts of eastern Europe are considered wealthier than they actually are? Things like income level or Russian male life expectancy doesn't parallel that. Some people purposely say Europe instead of Western and Central Europe to raise the economic image of Eastern Europe. Every time you see one of those TV shows where they are helping poor people it is never Eastern Europe or parts of Central Asia where Caucasian looking people live. They are much quicker to go to a stable country with free compulsory education, a life expectancy over 73 and a literacy rate of over 90%, like Peru, because their target audiences for donations are whites from western developed countries. These businesses and organizations unethically use race as a marker of sympathy to get donations. They don't want to test the psychology of their donators because it'd make them realize there are people who look like them who live poorly to their standards.

My point is people manipulate definitions to support their agenda. An American scholar is more likely than anyone other scholar to write about the US taking the throne of leading the western world. A person doesn't want to take their less wealthy buddy to represent them.

You won't find many scholarly resources (if any that can that'll explicitly say Latin America or the West Indies are not apart of the west (eastern Europe may be another story, i.e. second world). You'll just find them shying away from it because that is what all the other scholars do. They divert attention away from them to the more wealthier industrialized countries. Often to countries they are actually from.

I'd be interested in seeing what Latin American scholars (even if via translation) have to say on this matter. The only scholars we here on this issue are mostly non-Latin Americans. Mostly Americans or English speakers.

These articles should be considered for combination. At the very least I am going to edit this article to include only the areas deemed part of the "Western World" by the sources I have already indicated unless someone presents evidence to the contrary.

The evidence doesn't sufficiently say Latin America is not apart of the west. All it gives is a definition of what he recognizes as the west. There are other scholarly definitions though. There are other sources (i.e. government embassy sites) which have other definitions.

Another point is that article was written by an American scholar and most of the article is about the US. The tone of the article is written in the context of the US taking the throne of leading the western world. He practically coded the word Western Civilization to mean American civilization. This already set up the parameters of neglecting regions like Latin America and the West Indies. Plus, that scholar's expertise is more in military intelligence.

On the contrary all the online sources that address the topic specifically tend to exclude Latin America.

As in which ones specifically? There are actually ones listed that indicate it is apart of the west.

I included Australia and New Zealand because they are mentioned in the references.

Not by the Princeton University definition. So you want to pick and choose which definitions should count?

II included Australia and New Zealand because they are mentioned in the references.

Show me the quote where he excludes them. He said ancient Greek and Roman history were of no importance to indigenous and Meztiso Latin Americans. That doesn't mean they aren't apart of the west. And why did he only exclude them and not white or black Latin Americans? A country such as Brazil or Cuba doesn't have many indigenous or Meztiso people. Are we supposed to divide up Latin America based on the definition of one scholar? And are we supposed to ignore the other scholarly Princeton source that says North America which includes Mexico and Mesoamerica?

None of what you says addresses my point about the West Indies though (a separate region from Latin America). I am unclear as to whether we are in agreement or disagreement there. By the way, unlike Latin America and eastern Europe, the West Indies are too lowly populated of a region to be given status as a separate region. TomNyj0127 (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

72.185.162.37 (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Check out the map here, http://s02.middlebury.edu/FS056A/Herb_war/clash3.htm. Huntington seems to include Australia and New Zealand as part of the Western World and labels Latin America as a separate group.

Kurth (http://www.mmisi.org/ir/39_01_2/kurth.pdf) describes the west as such, "...But within the West itself (i.e. the United States, Europe, and also Canada, Australia, and New Zealand)..." on the first page. On the final page, as a footnote it states, "Latin America fits ambivalently within the West. Insofar as it is Latin, it is generally Western. Insofar as it is American in the sense of Amerindian, it is something else." Insofar as Latino Americans and other minorities are concerned, there are always people in every modern culture who do not conform historically to the current culture. Almost all industrialized countries have experienced significant immigration. Most immigrants, although historically different than the surrounding culture assimilate.

The Princeton website obviously excludes South America and Eastern Europe. While its description could include part of Latin America, commonly in the US the Americas are described in three regions, North, Central and South America. Being that the same website defines Central America, http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=central+america&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=0 , I believe it is fair to conclude the only Latin American country they are including is Mexico. Mexico is excluded by the other sources; however, given the ambiguity and your arguments, I would not protest to Mexico being included.

The West Indies are a very grey area. I would say that the territories still belonging to other western countries should be included and those areas controlled by non-western countries should be excluded. The independent countries appear to be excluded by the references, other again than by the Princeton one. You seem to be pretty well studied in this area, I would not object to your conjecture regarding which independent countries should be included, absent any evidence to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legion211 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Check out the map here, http://s02.middlebury.edu/FS056A/Herb_war/clash3.htm. Huntington seems to include Australia and New Zealand as part of the Western World and labels Latin America as a separate group.

This is one source. You and I both know that an area studied as extensively as this are not limited to one study. Please provide me other resources showing a consistent pattern of this. And if possible, it really would be nice to hear what scholars from Latin America or at least a country other than the US have to say.

May I ask where the West Indies are in this study though? He decided to bold French Guyana, yet not Martinique or Guadeloupe (also legal territories of France)? Does this map even show all of the Caribbean? It is not a clear map. It makes no cultural sense to consider the West Indies apart of Latin America (if that is what is being done). That'd be in the minority view of scholars. As I said though, the West Indies are a relatively small region that tends to be neglected.

On the final page, as a footnote it states, "Latin America fits ambivalently within the West. Insofar as it is Latin, it is generally Western. Insofar as it is American in the sense of Amerindian, it is something else." Insofar as Latino Americans and other minorities are concerned, there are always people in every modern culture who do not conform historically to the current culture. Almost all industrialized countries have experienced significant immigration. Most immigrants, although historically different than the surrounding culture assimilate.

This is an interesting quote because our interpretation of this quote may be as subjective as his own personal view is which sadly seems to lack objectivity (which is sad but not unexpected of a scholar who primarily works on military expertise). I actually contacted Professor Kurth for further explanation of some quotes from this article and I'm waiting on a response.

There is a point to be made here though. You nor anyone else can say Latin American is consistently excluded from the west, yet also included too.

The Amerindian element of Latin America is in the minority of Latin America and really only relevant in certain areas. It is entirely irrelevant in the Caribbean, most of eastern South America, Argentina and even other parts of Latin America.

How are we supposed to interpret There are always people in every modern culture who do conform historically to the current culture. What is the primary religion of the Guarani or Quencha people? For example, the overwhelming majority of people in the rural mountainous indigenously cultured regions of Peru (where the Quencha live the most) are Catholic, speak Spanish fluent or well (as a second language) and are literate (a trait nominally associated with contemporary western societies, which includes 90%+ of Latin America).

Almost all industrialized countries have experienced significant immigration. Most immigrants, although historically different than the surrounding culture assimilate.

Are you saying Latin America is industrialized or not industrialized in this context? Because some of the areas of Latin America that experiences immigration the most are not considered developed, industrialized or a newly industrialized country (i.e. Argentina, although NIC's seem to be reserved for largely populated countries). However, you are right that immigrants do generally assimilate into the dominant culture of a society. In the case of West Africans and their descendants who were enslaved, their cultures and identities were stripped from them. Therefore, there'd be little to go against them being western. Kurth says nothing against this.

The Princeton website obviously excludes South America and Eastern Europe. While its description could include part of Latin America, commonly in the US the Americas are described in three regions, North, Central and South America. Being that the same website defines Central America.

Believe it or not, the definition even varies in the US. In the US, we consider Central America to be a cultural region. It is not taught to be a separate continent of it's own. That definition doesn't discretely indicate whether or not it is North or South America. There is no source in the world that says Central America is apart of South America. There are many that say it is North America. There is nothing else it can be continentally included in.

I believe it is fair to conclude the only Latin American country they are including is Mexico. Mexico is excluded by the other sources; however, given the ambiguity and your arguments, I would not protest to Mexico being included.

Why would you want a country such as Brazil to be excluded than? It doesn't have all the elements that are used as arguments against it being western (i.e. heavy amounts of indigenous culture, no periods of high immigration, ect). There is even a Canadian embassy site referring to Brazilian art as western art.

The West Indies are a very grey area. I would say that the territories still belonging to other western countries should be included and those areas controlled by non-western countries should be excluded.

Why should they be excluded? Many of these countries that are not apart of European countries or the Us haven't been independent for long. So on July 9th, 1970, The Bahamas were western? On July 10th, 1970, they are not western. Do you realize this sounds a bit silly? Maybe there is an argument against Haiti since they've been separated from a European colonial power almost 200 years. This argument doesn't apply to most of the Caribbean though.

Also, I do not think it makes any sense to replace Haiti with the British Virgin Islands. Firstly, it is apart of the United Kingdom. So it doesn't make much sense to exclude it. Secondly, they are lowly populated. I'd still argue that Haiti is a western country since it speaks a Latin language (which Haitian Creole is actually apart of) and is predominantly Catholic. I really do think that showing the extremes of the west are fair. You can show the wealthiest of the former colonies (i.e. the US, Canada) and the poorest (i.e. Haiti).

The independent countries appear to be excluded by the references, other again than by the Princeton one.

Which means our sources are a bit insufficient.

You seem to be pretty well studied in this area, I would not object to your conjecture regarding which independent countries should be included, absent any evidence to the contrary.

If we used language and dialect as objective markers, there is much African influence on Haitian Creole and Jamaican Patois. However, Jamaican Patois is not classified as it's own language and is considered a dialect of English. Other islands in the Caribbean such as Barbados don't have dialects of English that vary as much from standard English.

May I say too that the map you provided poorly labels regions? It only lists the southern half of Africa as African. Is the northern half of Africa not culturally African? Most scholars today list Sub-Saharan Africa as it's cultural region which excludes much countries on this map.

Why is Papua New Guinea listed as western in this map? This is very inconsistent from what most scholars include as western.

The last thing I'd like to say it is also hard to categorize Guyana and Suriname because they barely neatly fit into any cultural region. They tend to be associated with the West Indians if any region though. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me a source that states Brazil is part of the Western World? You argue Brazil should be included based on your personal studies. I have shown you three references that exclude Brazil. The Canadian embassy referring to Brazilian art as western is useful in discussing Brazilian art, which this article is not about.

Regarding Mexico and the West Indies you are correct my comments might be contradictory and very debatable. I was only seeking to compromise with you regarding an area that was debatable. That all the references exclude Brazil in not debatable. On this note it sounds as if you are challenging the sources themselves, yet they specifically address the topic of this article. On this point you seem to agree, hence you even attempted to contact one author.

Are you saying Latin America is industrialized or not industrialized in this context? I am saying neither. I was referring to your statement regarding Kurth ignoring Latin Americans. Some Western European countries now have rather sizable Arabic minorities immigrate to them from less industrialized African and Middle Eastern countries. This does not cause these countries to be included in the Arabic world, or change their status as Western countries. Just as Latino immigration into the US has not changed its status. The industrialized reference was acknowledging this is a one sided phenomenon. Rarely do citizens of an industrialized country immigrate to less industrialized ones.

We do not need to use language as "objective indicators", we do not need any objective evidence at all. This is an encyclopedia article, not a research paper. The point of this article is to provide a "...readable summary of the points of view of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say." (Wikipedia:What is an article?) If you can provide additional scholars then that is welcome, being that this is an English article having references from the limited English speaking countries, or even one of them, does not seem overly limited.

Personal I do feel Brazil is extremely westernized, probably so much so it should be considered a western country. From what I understand it is the most Catholic country in the world. Personal feelings and beliefs are irrelevant here though. We are to summarize what scholars of the field have written, even if we disagree with them. Whether the scholars are biased or even out right racist, is irrelevant in this particular context (I tend to disagree with you on this point though and feel they are neither). Their are proper forums for arguing against the current consensus, this is not such a forum. I have shown you references that explicitly address the topic at hand, based on this the article needs to be edited accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legion211 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me a source that states Brazil is part of the Western World? You argue Brazil should be included based on your personal studies. I have shown you three references that exclude Brazil. The Canadian embassy referring to Brazilian art as western is useful in discussing Brazilian art, which this article is not about.

So you're saying it makes sense to say Brazilian art is western art, yet Brazil is not the west? This has nothing to do with my personal research. This has to do with what your sources say. Professor Kurth said Latin American is western because it is Latin. The only time he said that ancient Greek and Roman culture meant nothing to indigenous and Meztiso Latin Americans. Does that mean he doesn't consider them western? Indirectly. Likewise, saying Brazilian art is western art is indirect. Do you think the Canadian embassy is going to call Senegalese or Russian art western art?

As I said, indigenous group are very small in Brazil. Wouldn't this suggest Professor Kurth considers Brazil apart of the west? Then we have a Canadian journalist who calls Colombia the most dangerous country in the west.

Every reference we have is very inconsistent with each other. Only one says Papua New Guinea is apart of the west. The Princeton one doesn't give a precise definition of if North America excludes Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America. The Princeton one also doesn't mention Australia or New Zealand (inconsistent with the other resources). None of these sources address the West Indies nor really even mentions it altogether.

Regarding Mexico and the West Indies you are correct my comments might be contradictory and very debatable. I was only seeking to compromise with you regarding an area that was debatable. That all the references exclude Brazil in not debatable.

One of many references that are open for interpretation. Please explain to me Professor Kurth's and others quotes in a way that consistently explicitly excludes Brazil. By Professor Kurth's criteria, he'd likely consider Brazil to be more western than Mexico because in some parts of Mexico there are culturally indigenous people who speak those languages.

On this note it sounds as if you are challenging the sources themselves, yet they specifically address the topic of this article. On this point you seem to agree, hence you even attempted to contact one author.

I am not necessarily challenging the credibility of each individual source. I'm saying it isn't leaving us with a uniform conclusion to have different sources making inconsistent claims. Many that contrast each other. Professor Kurth's study is related to the subject (or at least the one available for reading). I'm not going to use him not having expertise in this particular area (rather military) against the credibility of the citation.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the credibility and reliability of an article though. More people really should do that on Wikipedia.

I am saying neither. I was referring to your statement regarding Kurth ignoring Latin Americans. Some Western European countries now have rather sizable Arabic minorities immigrate to them from less industrialized African and Middle Eastern countries. This does not cause these countries to be included in the Arabic world, or change their status as Western countries.

Oh, okay. The way I read that I thought you meant that historical high scale immigration contributed to the fabric of Brazil just like the United States. On this point, I'd agree. Until a country has gotten to a point when the majority cultural identity has changed (i.e. language, cultural norms), it's status as apart of a larger culture shouldn't be changed.

As you know though, western Europe is a large place. Some of their immigration is just crossing into each other's countries (i.e. Portuguese people are the second largest immigrant group in France). There are many countries that have lower proportions of Arab immigrants. Generally speaking, Middle Eastern immigrants aren't high in numbers in Western Europe. It is mainly North Africans.

An interesting point though in Europe is many in the majority ethnic groups of western Europe do believe there are vast cultural differences between Arabs/Muslims and themselves. Many don't assimilate, downwardly integrate and/or assimilation when they do. Even when language isn't so much the issue (i.e. Algerians and Moroccans in France).

Regarding assimilation, in the contemporary context, it is hard to apply this. Regarding Latin American immigrants in the US, the intermarriage rate with American-born people is high and widespread. Due to religiously related reasons, this is much less the case in Western Europe. Assimilation more or less requires marrying into the dominant group. Since countries like the US, Canada and Brazil, are and have always been multicultural in some capacity, what any immigrant group could be assimilating into is debatable. Western Europe is now at a point where they are arguably as multicultural as the other countries mentioned.

The situation with Latin American immigrants is much different in the US. The only similarity between the two is that the predominance are working-class and hold less education than the average. Latin Americans integrate and assimilation into mainstream American culture much more smoothly. The main reason why is because the cultures aren't that different (i.e. A background of Western Christianity, native western European language speakers).

Among the Muslim immigrants the US actually does take, the only people able to get in (because of law prior to '65 which prevented streams of immigrants unlike the lack of restriction from the Americas) are very educated (or related to people who are). Although I may not be sure if their levels of religiosity are lower because of their education, it certainly makes them more liberal, accepting to moving and their work determines where they live more than ethnic associations.

The industrialized reference was acknowledging this is a one sided phenomenon. Rarely do citizens of an industrialized country immigrate to less industrialized ones.

In most cases, this is true. Not entirely though. What about western European immigrants who moved to Brazil or Argentina in the early-to-mid 1900's? Countries like England, France and Germany were already industrialized. Now their descendants in those countries are assimilated and speak Spanish and Portuguese natively.

We do not need to use language as "objective indicators", we do not need any objective evidence at all. This is an encyclopedia article, not a research paper.

So we should not use objective evidence to make a claim? Than what is the purpose of getting a citation?

If you can provide additional scholars then that is welcome, being that this is an English article having references from the limited English speaking countries, or even one of them, does not seem overly limited.

I would say it makes it quite limited. I understand two-thirds of native Anglophones are from the US, but many scholars who don't speak the language natively do use it. It really shouldn't be that hard to show opinions from other sources.

Until then, why not just put the words American in parentheses across this entire article if their scholars seem to be the only one represented in this article? Even the scholars in this country are not unified on the issue though. The slight amount of non-American resources we have are actually the ones supporting claims Brazil and Colombia are the west.

Personal I do feel Brazil is extremely westernized, probably so much so it should be considered a western country.

The context of which you are saying this is misleading though. You said they are extremely westernized. This implies that Brazil was at some point in their post-Columbian history was not the west and that someone else had westernized them? I said post-Columbian because obviously no part of the Americas was western before European exploration. My point being that the US's history of being western is quite similar to that of Brazil in that the indigenous people and cultures were for the most part wiped out, a native western European language became dominant and there was a population of enslaved Africans. Then they had large scale European immigration periods practically at the same time as each other. No one besides the Portuguese several centuries ago westernized Brazil.

From what I understand it is the most Catholic country in the world. Personal feelings and beliefs are irrelevant here though.

Our personal views do not matter here. I don't think it is necessary to state our opinions. I do however think we should consider all the information we have from the sources we do and measure if each source is consistently saying the same thing (which isn't true).

It is true that there is a certain amount of subjectivity to what is western. That is why international organizations don't use it. I'd say to you based on all the criteria I just named in that paragraph above, how is the US any more western than Brazil? Because they say they are? Because bias people don't know the difference between wealth and culture?

We are to summarize what scholars of the field have written, even if we disagree with them.

But one of the scholars (Kurth) we are using has not excluded Brazil in the context of saying indigenous and Meztiso peoples aren't culturally influenced by the Greeks and Romans.

Although I will not use this in the argument, I actually did challenge the scholar's view on that. I simply asked how can a people who are the majority of Catholics in the world (including indigenous and Meztiso) people not consider the Romans not apart of their culture if their religion is the last standing major contribution of the Romans. Especially since they are much more active in it than Latin Europeans. I also said it wouldn't be possible for monolingual Hispanophones of these backgrounds to think without the Roman culture since that is where their language directly comes from. I am curious to see if his ego will be too big to respond to a Sociology undergrad. I guess we'll have to see.

Whether the scholars are biased or even out right racist, is irrelevant in this particular context (I tend to disagree with you on this point though and feel they are neither).

I didn't say they were racist. However, if a scholar were out right racist, it would be destructive to their credibility. It wouldn't be irrelevant at all though. I insist they are bias even if unintentionally. In the case of Kurth, he actually does include Latin America (or at least some Latin Americans). Like I said, you won't find many scholars from the US saying Latin America and the West Indies not being western.

The reason is they don't have an explanation why and they can't give you a counter alternative. Claiming that Latin America is it's own cultural region is the best they are going to do and that still neglects the West Indies, Suriname, Guyana and indigenous cultures that exist in countries like Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru and Guatemala. There is a reason Latin America's role or exclusion from the west is a limitedly studied are. Believe me, it can be studied more given the level of interest in this area.

In the case of Kurth, the article was about highlighting the US's role as leader of the west. Contemplating ideas about Latin America were minor details. Still, even when he does make a claim either support or not supporting Latin America being the west, he isn't even citing other professors. He isn't telling you where his information is coming from. There is a reason that particular article is open to the public to read.

You show partly explicit in one (exlcusion of South America, but nothing of North and/or Central America). Contradicting in the next. That one scholar is not the be all end all on this subject. Other scholars are not consistent with that view.

Although we haven't touched on it, besides cutting out the top half of Africa from being African, I question the reliability of the map displayed because it lists Albania and Bosnia as Orthodox. At least all of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia-Montenegro are all Slavic speaking people who are culturally related to other Slavs. Albanians have Islamic background and are not Slavs. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Slavic speaking people are linguistically, NOT CULTURALLY, related to other Slavs! I am Czech and I see no cultural relation to eastern or south-eastern Slavs. Of course, our languages are similar, but our cultures totally different.

Of course you are correct that evidence showing the authors were biased or racist would given them a lack of credibility. I do not see that as the case. In Kurth's case he does exclude Latin America, both in his defining of the west and in his footnote, stating that it is both Latin and yet something different from the west. Huntington's map also excludes Latin America. The Princeton reference seems to include Mexico, but excludes South America. Although you are correct, one scholar is not the be all and end all, it appears to me they all exclude the entirety of South America. Minus your Canadian reference, which includes only Brazil, you have not shown any others.

I would like to reach a consensus with you. Your argument for Brazil being included seems very strong, and I accept that Brazil should be included as part of the western world; however, I do not believe its inclusion means including all of South America. Although its history is similar to other South American countries, it is unique in important ways. Brazil having been ruled by a European Monarch who was separate from any other European head of state and Brazil's entry into World War Two on the side of the allies. Also Brazil has generally (although certainly not always) been an ally of the NATO nation's in South America, especially in regards to its actions against its long time rival Argentina. Argentina in particular has been an antagonist toward Western countries and should not be considered one. Also its recent history of a dictatorial ruler seems to be evidence that its society is not Western. On those two countries I would say Brazil yes, Argentina no. what are your thoughts regarding that? Legion211 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In Kurth's case he does exclude Latin America, both in his defining of the west and in his footnote, stating that it is both Latin and yet something different from the west.

Is that really how you interpret it? Kurth almost sounds bipolar in his view (for a lack of a better way to describe it). For example, why would he say that ancient Romans and Greeks don't matter to indigenous and Meztiso Latin Americans? Why not just say all Latin Americans if he believed this of all Latin Americans?

How is one supposed to interpret In that they are Latin, they are western... as not taking his definition of Latin America as western (or partly western at the least).

The Princeton reference seems to include Mexico, but excludes South America

It said North America though. How do we know if it includes the Spanish-speaking Caribbean or Central America? Even in the traditional North American definition of the North American continent, the Caribbean is included. We even have a limited passport specifically designed just to travel to other parts of North America which they define as Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.

Why can't we question where he got his scholarly knowledge from? It looks absolutely terrible and incompetent for a professor to not cite or have limited citations in a journal article. So it is a bit of a problem we're already dealing with the free scrappy texts available.

Minus your Canadian reference, which includes only Brazil, you have not shown any others.

What about the other Canadian referencing Colombia? Did you see that article?

Huntington's map also excludes Latin America. The Princeton reference seems to include Mexico, but excludes South America. Although you are correct, one scholar is not the be all and end all, it appears to me they all exclude the entirety of South America. Minus your Canadian reference, which includes only Brazil, you have not shown any others.

Although you are correct, one scholar is not the be all and end all, it appears to me they all exclude the entirety of South America. Minus your Canadian reference, which includes only Brazil, you have not shown any others.

We have a small amount of sources though. Even if one of three or four sources contradicts what the other maps are indicating, it means we shouldn't expect uniformity. The Canadian journalist is a more casual example. The embassy site (which may actually take Brazilian opinion into consideration) is reputable and I'm sure has had scholarly views on the art.

Your argument for Brazil being included seems very strong, and I accept that Brazil should be included as part of the western world; however, I do not believe its inclusion means including all of South America.

I'd agree to some capacity with that statement. The thing about South America though is it isn't something you can necessarily narrow down to country. For example, even if you took countries with stronger indigenous cultural elements like Paraguay and Bolivia, there is still arguably more Spanish-Catholic influence on those countries. These countries should at least be considered partly western for that. Then if you wanted to be really specific you can narrow it down to regions within the country. For instance, although most of Paraguay's population is not very rural, I read that over 1/2 of rural Paraguayans are monolingual Guarani speakers. Although they still may be Catholic, I'd argue these people aren't western. If western colonization can't change the native tongue of the people, then it says their contact with them was less culturally pervasive.

Although its history is similar to other South American countries, it is unique in important ways.

Yes, this is true. One of the unique aspect of Brazil is that they took in more enslaved west Africans than any other country in that Trans-Atlantic slave trade. That contrasted most of the rest of South America because the rest of the continent had enslaved much less people (at least in the context of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade). The actual reason why the slave trade was less present in other parts of South America was because of the exploitation and/or slavery of indigenous peoples.

Also Brazil has generally (although certainly not always) been an ally of the NATO nation's in South America, especially in regards to its actions against its long time rival Argentina. Argentina in particular has been an antagonist toward Western countries and should not be considered one.

Similarly to how one shouldn't use wealth and economy to judge the culture of a country, I would not use military or international politics to determine this either. By that account, Japan would count as western and Cuba would count as Orthodox. Unlike wealth and international policy which are controlled by a small number of people, the culture of a people are very much in the hands of the people. If a country's antagonism is a reason to not be apart of the west, the US would be at the top of the list. We've been to war with several western countries in our history (United Kingdom, Spain, Mexico). Can the US not taking the Geneva Convention into consideration in the past decade be viewed as antagonizing (or bullying)?

Don't you notice that there are many things about the United States that make it stand out from the rest of the western world. How many other western countries have the death penalty? Even those that do reserve it for a limited amount of cases. We are currently among the top countries to carry out executions. Every other country on the list has questionable human rights records. What about South America? The only countries that have it are for war crimes and even most don't have that.

Argentina is an interesting case if you look at same-sex marriage (which as an entire country with the exception of South Africa is something that only exist in Western Europe and Canada). There is a bit more western influence on SA than most other African countries though.

Why is the level of religiosity in the United States considerably higher than any other western country? Look at how many denominations of churches we've created (i.e. LDS). We have thousands of Baptists churches. The United States created creationism and intelligent design. Only about 40% actually accept evolution (you'll see several articles saying that if you google it). I had a science professor who showed the class a Gallup poll which said 45% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form. I know you can't fairly compare this to Catholic countries because the Catholic church formally accepts evolution. I'd expect that number to be much lower in predominantly Protestant western countries like Germany, Australia, Canada or Jamaica.

Every time I tell a non-American westerner this they aren't sure if I'm being serious. As though their expectation that being western is synonymous to accepting the theory of evolution.

Wouldn't this suggest American culture has taken a shift unique from that of Europe and the rest of the west? Why does this country not have universal health care if most to every western country has it (including some of Latin America)? Why are we one of the only western countries to give very limited maternity leave? Is there something in the US that culturally distinguishes them from viewing these values the same way? Now I am not suggesting the US is not a western country. Wouldn't these be good questions to ask though? Our scholars would never say it in the context of challenging our inclusiveness in the west though. Kurth proved to be no more than a politician in that he had to twist it into meaning that makes us more of a leader.

Also its recent history of a dictatorial ruler seems to be evidence that its society is not Western.

That would be like saying Germany and Italy are not western because of Hitler and Mussolini. Or if you wanted to be more recent Franco and Spain.

On those two countries I would say Brazil yes, Argentina no. what are your thoughts regarding that?

I'd agree with Brazil, disagree with Argentina. The reason being Argentina (plus Uruguay and to a lesser degree Chile) absorbed more European cultural traits because their history of Western European immigration is more recent and there is a much lesser degree of indigenous cultural influence compared to countries like Paraguay, Ecuador and Peru. For example, Argentina has a higher percentage of Atheists and Agnostics than most of Latin America (~10%). They also have a low percentage of church goers (~20-25%). These numbers are very similar in countries such as Spain and Italy. There has also been much Italian influence on the dialect of Spanish spoken in the most populated regions of Argentina.

Perhaps what we should do is provide a couple extra paragraphs somewhere explaining the significant minority indigenous cultures that exist in western and New World countries today. Groups that should be mentioned are the Mayans of Guatemala, the Quenchua of Peru and Ecuador, the Guarani of Paraguay, the Maori of New Zealand, The Inuit of Canada (the majority aren't and have never been Christian) and some major Native American tribes in the US that have maintained their languages (i.e. Navajo, especially considering the impact of their language against the Japanese in WWII). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyj0127 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for changing it back to the original countries mentioned and in the order of population. I believe this will fairly represent each region of the division of the New World in the western world. Although Argentina has more people than each of Canada and Australia, I understand for the sake of brevity that it is only necessary to show one Spanish-speaking Latin American country (Mexico). Brazil and Mexico hold the majority of the population of Latin America alone so this is sufficient. The French-speaking New World is given representation through Quebec (Canada) and Haiti (Haitian Creole being a French based Creole). Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I apologize for not signing my name at the end of my messages when I am signed onto my Nyj0127 account. I sometimes forget to log in when I write on here. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to one more point regarding Kurth. I took the time to read the article more carefully. What you will notice in the last few pages of the article is that he speaks with a bias for conservatives. I'd hope most people are aware that the least credible scholars are the ones who can't separate their bias from their work. They are normally the ones who spend most of their career at universities no one heard of. And they let their work out for the public because no one and few universities are willing to pay them to use it. Please read this which is on the last page of his article:

The best defense against the barbarians will be found in the Christian religion. With the Christian tradition, Western civilization became the most creative, indeed the highest, civilization in human history. Without the Christian tradition, Western civilization could come to nothing. With a revival of the Christian tradition, West civilization will not only prevail over the new barbarians, but it will become more truly civilized than it is today.

Are you so sure you can read that without a sense of bias or racism? He said western civilization is the most creative. How do you define who is most creative? This is a very arbitrary and subjective statement. Does he provide evidence for why the Christian tradition is the best gate keeper of western civilization? No. It is just his bias opinion. He uses America's higher level of Christian practice as a reason to say they are the best keepers to western civilization. How exactly would it be nothing? And wouldn't America's secularism and casual approach to approach (even if more religious than other western countries) be contradictory of this?

So a man who is not actually an expert in this area, explicitly shows disdain for liberals, believes Christianity is the be all end all of western civilization and that western civilization is the most creative is who we should be citing? How can we blame anyone to not take Wikipedia seriously if we are using questionable resources? I think it is a reasonable question. TomNyj0127 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done some additional reading on the histories of Argentina and Brazil and I can see little reason why they should not be considered part of the Western World in a historical context. Their histories are not too much different than US history in many regards. Brazil's especially seems to really model itself from classical Roman belief's. That being said, I have not found any references considering them part of the Western World. Which is still a problem as it seems to me that lack of references violates the Wikipedia original research policy.

I disagree that politics should not be considered. Although limited numbers of people from a particular country constitute the ruling elite, the very ruling institutions that society allows to form speak much to their norms and mores. For example in Brazil's case dose it not strengthen its inclusion in the Western World that it had a revolution, an independent European Monarch, was the independent Empire of Brazil and then ultimately formed a Republic? Are these not some of the very ideals of Western society formed during the classical era and the age of enlightenment? So where does one draw the line between Western and Westernized? It seems to not only be the collection of ideals or language spoken, but in the very creation of the country itself. Those countries which were formed as a continuation of the ideals of the Western (Latin) Roman Empire would seem to have merit. Maybe the article should be written from a historical perspective rather then a modern one?

Kurth references barbarians and gives the example of "Islamic terrorists", referring to them as barbarians does not seem to present a bias except against criminals. I do not read anything in the article I would call racist. Kurth is clearly biased toward Christianity. He seems to feel its ideals are better than competing ideas. He even seems to imply that those who have pagan beliefs are the enemy. In my experience this is a commonly held belief among many religious people, that other beliefs are wrong, inferior and adversarial toward their beliefs. You notice in the paper he dedicates a substantial amount of time defending Christian and "Western" conservative beliefs. Indeed the paper appears to be about what he interprets as the eroding of Western culture. He is summarizing that the erosion of Western beliefs are critical because Western society was the most creative in civilization. It certainly could be argued it was so if you define it terms of technological innovation. Experts are often sought for their opinion. This is a scholarly paper, not a text book. That the paper addresses a controversial topic does not invalidate the definitions he gave for the West. It would certainly would invalidate them if there was any evidence he was excluding or including anyone due to his Christian conservative bias. I do not see that in this article, which seems to present a straight forward definition. Given the wide expected readership of this article though, I can see how an article with a Christian bias could be controversial in of itself. I believe it is the best interest of Wikipedia to avoid such things and I have removed the cite. Legion211 (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also to address your question regarding whether countries with large indigenous populations should be addressed, I think it should not. It seems to me to be outside the scope of this article. Those countries that were formed due to large indigenous populations, for example the US Native American reservations and some Latin American countries (Bolivia, Paraguay to name two), are not Western and should not be included. Certainly every, or almost every, Western country includes groups of people who would not be considered Westerners, I do not see any need to list them. Trying to list all non-westerners would add unnecessary length to the article. Listing the included states is sufficient. Legion211 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That being said, I have not found any references considering them part of the Western World. Which is still a problem as it seems to me that lack of references violates the Wikipedia original research policy.

There are some sources. The Canadian embassy is one. I know it is not a traditional journal article. It is a reputable source though. As I said, there are not many sources saying Brazil, Argentina and Latin America in general is not apart of the west. Not many that explicitly say they are either. Despite many scholars talking about contemporary western society, they really try avoiding definining Latin America and even more so the West Indies. In the case of Kurth, it is evident to who ever reads the article that he goes back and forth. In some context, he includes them apart of the west (i.e. why say ancient Roman culture means nothing to indigenous and Meztiso peoples, why not whites, blacks or mulattos?). In other ways, he excludes them. The Princeton resource leaves out countries normally included (Australia and New Zealand). Yet they include Mexico (which we haven't found other resources). The real question is how many sources do we have that say one way or the other? 3? 4? Is this reliable on a subject that gives definitions and is debatable?

I disagree that politics should not be considered. Although limited numbers of people from a particular country constitute the ruling elite, the very ruling institutions that society allows to form speak much to their norms and mores.

It should not be considered as a primary factor for two reasons. One, there is a lot of flexibility in politics. Many countries were temporarily communist (i.e. Nicaragua). A country's culture apart of a larger culture can't be redefined every couple years. Even in Cuba where Communism took over, their language and culture didn't change. If anything, their closed doors have preserved the internal culture of the island greater than countries that take many immigrants are able to.

The second reason is you used dictatorship as a reason against being western. Does this mean that Germany, Italy and Spain (more recently) were not western? While it is true that most western countries do not presently have dictators, it is not synonymous with being western. Just like being developed is not synonymous. However, if you do feel this way, you should be fair and consider the present political entity of each country. The definition or idea of the west began well before post-modernity. Why should we not contemplate the definition of Spain being western if their dictator and birth to democracy occurred virtually at the same time as Argentina? No one is arguing if Spain is western or not though. This means that if you do want to make an argument for Argentina, political history is not a strong argument.

For example in Brazil's case dose it not strengthen its inclusion in the Western World that it had a revolution, an independent European Monarch, was the independent Empire of Brazil and then ultimately formed a Republic?

Many western countries like Canada and Australia never exactly had a revolution. Does that make them not western? Would Cuba having a revolution strengthen their case for being included in the west? The Bolshevic Revolution arguably had the greatest impact on contemporary Western Europe even though it did not occur in the western world. Yet do we contend that present-day eastern Germany is not apart of the west because of Communism?

Note to that what defines a revolution is arbitrary and likely to be exaggerated by the home country. For example, the French revolution was much more intense than the American revolution. In the French revolution, the entire political and social structure of the country changed. In the US, the same people who were in control still had control and all the laws remained similar. What would become the US didn't unify until 13 years after they declared independence. They were legally separate countries. Therefore, the US constitution actually has had a much larger impact on US history compared to the American revolution.

The US did not have many of those intermediary stages Brazil had. Yet France did. Does that make the US not western or less western?

Are these not some of the very ideals of Western society formed during the classical era and the age of enlightenment? So where does one draw the line between Western and Westernized?

I think everyone should understand that the impact and context of the Age of Enlightenment was different in all the Americas than in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. I include Australia and New Zealand more with Europe because their colonization ended later and their country has seen a steadily high stream of western European immigrants in the last century (unlike the Americas). The cultural and religious values of people in the Americas is a product of the people here centuries ago upon splitting ties with our European colonial powers.

Religiosity is much higher in the US than Protestant Europe because our religious values evolved separately (I'd argue the Protestant West Indies are religiously intermediary to the two). Religiosity is much higher in Latin America compared to Latin Europe for the same reason. The countries that do have some recognizable amounts of Western European immigrants in their countries (Argentina, Canada, even if old) are the least religious (hence partly explaining how same-sex marriage became fully legal there). Canada becoming independent at a later date also gave them British influence the US did not have in the 19th C. It can be argued the later part of the Enlightenment had a different impact on Canada's view of science and religion (compared to the US).

All of the US, the West Indies and most of Latin America have fertility rates all above 2.0. The only countries with birth rates similar to the EU in the Americas either have more recent waves of western European immigration (i.e. Canada), had western European colonization ended later (i.e. Cuba, Puerto Rico) or are still colonies of European powers (i.e. Bermuda). I am not completely certain why this is. However, this trend is evident.

So where does one draw the line between Western and Westernized?

That is a gray line. It is only a line you can draw if you establish who is doing the westernizing and when. Examples of countries which were 'westernized are South Africa and Israel. Both countries have histories of being politically and economically dominated by minority populations of descendants of western Europeans (i.e. White South Africans, Western European Jews). They influenced the rest of their countries (i.e. politics in Israel, religion in South Africa). Other examples of minority western ethnic groups are Americo-Liberians and Krio (Sierra Leone). South Africa is not western though because most of the populations are not people who've given up distinct separate ethnic identities. Israel is a more unique case because Arab Jews actually have meshed their cultural identity with European Jews. This process has made Ashkenazi Israel Jews less western (i.e. speaking Hebrew natively with no Latin alphabet) and Arab Jews more western. If politics were considered the strongest component, Israel would be western because Zionism roots out of Western/Central European Jews.

If the only reliable trace of the westernizer is the colonial power centuries ago which contributed a large permanently settled population (or brought a non-indigenous population that lost their identity), then this country should be viewed as a western country. Notice I said identity. I said identity in the cases of West Indians because they do not identify as various Niger-Congo ethnic groups. They identify as Jamaicans, Trinidadian, Nevisian, ect. Can we argue that the idea of identifying ethnically by national identity in areas with no significant indigenous population is a western phenomena? Whether it be Americans, Canadians, Australians, Cubans, Dominicans or West Indians?

It seems to not only be the collection of ideals or language spoken, but in the very creation of the country itself.

I'd agree in some capacity. The creation of one country compared to the next just varies too much. All the countries of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand do have similarities. They each have different histories and stories of independence though.

Maybe the article should be written from a historical perspective rather then a modern one?

Maybe. This would likely lead to confusion though. It is important for people to have a contemporary definition of what is western society.

Kurth references barbarians and gives the example of "Islamic terrorists", referring to them as barbarians does not seem to present a bias except against criminals.

This is not really where I thought he exhibited much of a bias. Terrorism (Islamic or not) are a threat to any civilization and society.

I do not read anything in the article I would call racist.

I don't know if I'd say what he has said is racist. Being bias and racist are two separate things. He is partial in his research. He shows explicit opposition to liberalism.

Kurth is clearly biased toward Christianity. He seems to feel its ideals are better than competing ideas. He even seems to imply that those who have pagan beliefs are the enemy. In my experience this is a commonly held belief among many religious people, that other beliefs are wrong, inferior and adversarial toward their beliefs.

I agree. He views Christianity as the guard of western civilization. He says the US is responsible for this. A reputable scholar cites the work and quotes of other scholars. They use the scientific method. He didn't. Saying ancient Greek and Roman culture does not mean anything to a Meztiso Latin American (who typically speaks Spanish natively and practices Roman Catholicism) is not scientific. This article is mostly just an opinion. It takes more to get respect as a scholar versus becoming a scholar. Researchers who can't separate their bias should look for another job.

You notice in the paper he dedicates a substantial amount of time defending Christian and "Western" conservative beliefs. Indeed the paper appears to be about what he interprets as the eroding of Western culture.

This is really a popular form of political rhetoric in the US too. The context of which he is writing this is likely to be read more agreeably or easily more interpretable to an American.

He is summarizing that the erosion of Western beliefs are critical because Western society was the most creative in civilization. It certainly could be argued it was so if you define it terms of technological innovation.

That all depends on definition. Couldn't defining progress on technology be a western idea? How much do we not know of societies that didn't not have written alphabets? Or have written alphabets no one can decipher? Or what if their ancient ruins couldn't survive due to climate?

Every technological innovations would have not been possible without the aid of other civilizations. It is hard to measure this in the era of globalization. Our best and most expensive technology generally comes from Japan which is not the west. Is it a western technological innovation if they extract the raw materials for cell phones in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and operate telecommunications out of India? Who even knows who is manufacturing it? Yet do we define it as western because the people who can buy the most of it live in western countries?

In any case, I think it is obvious there will be an element of bias when the man claiming western civilization is greatest is a westerner. And a man who is claiming the US is the leader of it is an American. I'd have to guess his credibility is probably better in the US compared to anywhere else.

Experts are often sought for their opinion. This is a scholarly paper, not a text book. That the paper addresses a controversial topic does not invalidate the definitions he gave for the West.

That the paper uses little to no scientific methodology is what diminishes the credibility of his paper. Whether the topic is controversial is not relevant. If a researcher is going to be bias in his/her research, most can do a better job than Kurth from making it so obvious.

It would certainly would invalidate them if there was any evidence he was excluding or including anyone due to his Christian conservative bias.

He is not providing us reasons for his claims. He says ancient Greek and Roman culture is not relevant to indigenous and Meztiso Latin Americans. Why? It is terrible research to write a paper without defending a point with evidence.

I do not see that in this article, which seems to present a straight forward definition.

It hardly produces a straight forward definition. Like I said, why only mention indigenous peoples and Meztisos? And not whites, blacks or mulattos? Does this suggest that he considers some Latin Americans westerners and some not? How are we supposed to know?

I believe it is the best interest of Wikipedia to avoid such things and I have removed the cite.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Also to address your question regarding whether countries with large indigenous populations should be addressed, I think it should not. It seems to me to be outside the scope of this article. Those countries that were formed due to large indigenous populations, for example the US Native American reservations and some Latin American countries (Bolivia, Paraguay to name two), are not Western and should not be included.

A country or region can't be excluded on the grounds of just having large indigenous populations. If these indigenous populations speak a western European language natively (which is the overwhelming majority on reservations in the US, as well much of Paraguay and Bolivia), it means something occurred here that did not occur in other places colonized by Europe. It should be noted though that South American countries with higher populations tend to have less indigenous populations and culture (i.e. Brazil which is 1/2 of South America alone, Argentina, ect.)

The most common reason in both the US and Latin America for Amerindians adopting a new native language was that indigenous populations lived alongside whites/Europeans. Amerindians in Latin America were introduced to Christianity much earlier than Native Americans in the US. Intermarriage in both places were common. It was easier for the dominant language and culture to have a larger impact than visa versa. Paraguay and to a lesser degree Bolivia are unique examples. The reason they are though is because there are only 2 or 3 major indigenous groups in these 2 countries. The Amerindian population in the US is/was more diverse. Some Amerindian tribes married people from other tribes. It was common for people of one tribe to be told to live on a reservation not native to their group. This raised the importance of English as a language of communication.

If the majority of people of indigenous or part indigenous background in Paraguay, Bolivia and Guatemala are speaking Spanish (even if not by a great majority), and not in the Philippines, despite mass conversion to Catholicism at similar times and similar length of colonization, it means the Spanish (western) culture made it to the Amerindians much more intimately. Despite most of Paraguay being of indigenous background, most are also partly of European descent. That can't be said in the Philippines or most colonies on the eastern hemisphere.

I am not sure where you are from (this may have an impact on your interpretation). If you have met many Latin Americans though (especially who live there), you'd be aware of the social racial stratification of Latin America. To the context of Americans and perhaps other native Anglophones, it is different than our own. Many Latin Americans who do not appear physically white answer a question in the context of what we'd interpret as being white. It is answering in the context of a national identity controlled by a white elite. I've heard Americans say things like I feel black, He sounds white, ect. This idea is foreign to Latin Americans. Therefore, I can guarantee you that if Latin Americans were to not see their region as western, it wouldn't be on the grounds of being western. Unless they were very Americanized (i.e. lived in the US). No one wants to hear the Latin American opinion on the subject. It is unfortunately unhealthy to have views from just one side.

Certainly every, or almost every, Western country includes groups of people who would not be considered Westerners, I do not see any need to list them.

I'll take this point into consideration. However, I think cultures that are indigenous to a place have different meaning than immigrant cultures. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to further elaborate by explaining race in the US. In between 1970 and 2000, Hispanics (the US definition being Spanish-speaking peoples and their descendants even if they don't speak Spanish) were categorized as a race (regardless of race, ethnicity, ancestry or if their native language were even Spanish). I mention this because their is this attitude of exclusion of Hispanics/Latinos into the majority in the US. Even many Americans (including of this background) are not aware that their government changed the status of Hispanic to being an ethnicity instead of a race.

There are severals reasons and ideas for why the US formally created a category separate from other races. Class is likely the biggest reason. Most Latin American immigrants who come to the US (especially from Mexico and Central America) are working class or poor. One can argue that it was elitist nature on the government (run by white Americans) to protect the status of whiteness by excluding white Latinos (about half of Latinos according to the US Census). One day when the US is less white, it will not surprise me if the white elite is more eager to include them (similar to Irish, Jews, Italians, Poles, ect.). Some people have this belief that in order to be western, a country has to be majority white (although that may actually be true about arguably the majority of Latin America). By many Americans believing that all Hispanics (regardless of race) are not white, it doesn't become hard for them to exclude their countries (or descendants) from their definition of the west.

In Canada, there are less Latin Americans. Hispanic or Latino is not a separate racial distinction like it is in the US. There are also less economic disparities between the Latin American Canadian population and everyone else. The Canadian Census asks a question on their Census if people consider themselves visible minorities. It allows the people to determine for themselves if they believe they are physically and/or socially white or not. These two points I'm making are just an example to illustrate to you how the American interpretation of racial identity for Latin Americans can skew their perception on what is the west. Canada doesn't have the same history of racializing Latin Americans. That is why it doesn't surprise me that those two articles claiming Brazil (indirect) and Colombia (direct) are the west came from Canadian sources. Not that I know how Canadians see the topic (I haven't done enough research there). It likely does vary from the American perspective in some way though. This is why we need resources from other countries (even if other English-speaking ones) to enhance the reliability of the definition. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree politics should not be the sole definition of being Western, but only one piece in the totality of the evidence for being Western. Language should also be considered one piece of the definition and not the single defining criteria. I think the Native American reservations are a great example of why language by itself should not define what is Western. Yes most of the residents of these states do speak English; however, these nations were formed for/by a people and culture that developed separate from the West. Cultures that formed completely separate from the West and then adopted (sometimes by force) Western traits would seem to be the clearest definition for Westernized.

The Russian revolution was markedly different than Western revolutions. It was neither to cast off the oppression of a distant colonial power or to form a republic. The revolution was in part, against (at least philosophically) the Western idea of capitalism. Also that Karl Marx was himself German, the Russian revolution was arguably caused by Western influences, and hence was a Western revolution even though Russia is clearly not a Western state. Largely though I have come to agree with your point of view, although specifics might differ, I think at this point finding suitable references is the main issue. Legion211 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Cultures that formed completely separate from the West and then adopted (sometimes by force) Western traits would seem to be the clearest definition for Westernized.

I agree. This is why I think the idea of western minorities is non-western countries is important. Because it helps you observe who is doing the westernizing. In the case of Liberia and Sierra Leone, we know an ethnic group with it's origins to the west as responsible. In certain countries like India which may all operate under the same government (which can be considered politically western), many parts of India didn't have as much a western impact as others. In a country like the Philippines, most of the country was very impacted by the west or westernized.

I think the Native American reservations are a great example of why language by itself should not define what is Western. Yes most of the residents of these states do speak English

They aren't states though. They are usually small areas of land. They have some their own rules and laws. They aren't recognized by the state and federal governments though. Most of the areas where they do have a lot of land don't have many people (i.e. Lakota in South Dakota and parts of neighboring states). Only about 150,000 people live on a territory the size of the state of Connecticut. The government gave them land in unfavorable climates or geographies no one else wanted.

These rules only apply in the sense of defining who is a member of the tribe. As in who can get what benefits. The original Native American ideal of land ownership and boundaries never existed before western colonization. So now being restricted to living in zones is not a Native American idea. It is optional to live in these places and many do leave because of the widespread poverty there. The irony though is the only way to preserve their culture is to purposely conform to the same rules which have dissolved much of it.

I do see you're point in saying language can't be the only thing to determine. In the case of Native Americans, there are several other reasons why even the more isolated groups can be considered western. I think native language is always a great place to start though because it usually does involve intermixing and permanent settlement. Not necessarily at the personal level but for it to be common. Europeans had a different philosophy on colonizing the Americas than they did the eastern Hemisphere (excluding Australia and New Zealand). It was for the most part easier and/or less populated than other regions so it was easier to do this. Their motive was to either change the people or kill the people. Spaniards didn't have the man power to live much in the Philippines. Or they didn't want to. In any case, there are lots of things you can use as criteria.

Also that Karl Marx was himself German, the Russian revolution was arguably caused by Western influences, and hence was a Western revolution even though Russia is clearly not a Western state.

Marx was not the man who orchestrated the revolution though. He laid out the imprints. That'd be like saying a type of astronomy and math developed in the west is Arabic because they built off of what they learned from them. Although I see your point, I don't think many would categorize this as a western revolution. However, this was a two way street. Marx impacted Russia. Russia (or the Soviet Union) impacted parts of the west like eastern Germany.

Largely though I have come to agree with your point of view, although specifics might differ, I think at this point finding suitable references is the main issue.

Yes. Hopefully we are able to find this. TomNyj0127 (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Professor Kurth responded to my e-mail which I greatly appreciated. He explained to me that at the time he wrote the article they were still laying out the framework of what they considered the west rather than developing a conclusion. He said he was convinced by my argument (especially regarding Latin languages and the Catholic church). As you said, it is hard to connote an elitist nature to the article. Like yourself though, I am convinced he put too much of emphasis on religion. TomNyj0127 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That is excellent that he responded and speaks very highly of him that he did and considered your argument. That the article was a rough draft solidifies its exclusion from the article. Legion211 (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Latin Americans themselves do not enter this discussion because the concept of a common Western world for all of us is foreign (and perceptions of identification with Europe rather than Latin America in regions like Southern Cone and São Paulo are readily labeled as racist, given the racist stereotypes of mestizo, Indigenous and afrodescendant migrants and social outcasts). We are subdeveloped countries which did not happened to be benefited from liberalism and globalization. Our political rhetoric, both in much of the right (not the conservative or liberal/libertarian ones, but certainly much of the reactionary and the nationalist — just see our Integralismo) as in all along the left, put Latin America and the developed world as if it were in opposite sides. For example, when some American cultural items appear to win over the Latin American ones, many say that it is a side effect of "imperialism" (informal term for neocolonialism). In all political circles. Even in the general populace, many not interested in politics. In Western Europe, this tone of anti-American "anti-globalization nationalism" is associated with the far-right and in just some cases the far-left.

There are non-westernized minorities, partly westernized minorities or majorities and fully westernized minorities, majorities or overwhelming majorities in the different countries of Latin America. It is a cultural continuus, not a black-in-white fact (even because culture is not understood that way). Here in Brazil, I would say that we have a non-westernized tiny minority, a partly westernized larger minority and a fully westernized majority. Middle and upper class people in urban developments in Southern Brazil and Southeastern Brazil are always in the last group, and those in the lower class almost always (please do not get this as classist, it is a fact that social minorities from culturally different rural regions, mainly those from regions which are not White-majority, suffer prejudice, exclusion and discrimination, so everybody have to live a certain way of life to be socially accepted — the cultural stereotypes of the people which live in the favela, or those which came from the Sertão, are the most largely hated by average Brazilians in general, as it was in the case of the Amerindians and Negroes in the past, ALL ABOUT OUR FAR-RIGHT PARANOIA HATE ON THE NON-WHITE INTERN MIGRANTS AND THE CULTURALLY STRANGE, SUPPOSEDLY VIOLENT, SAVAGE, LAZY AND DUMB, POOR OF COLOR, THEY ONLY CAN LOSE TO SEXUAL MINORITIES), and counting only the people which live in Greater São Paulo, they just came to be even 12% of Brazilians. Studying Latin America, we can see that a lot of academics consider Uruguay and Argentina as "transplanted peoples" or related concepts rather than non-Western countries. Personally, I do not feel that South America did not acquire all colonizer cultural aspects, even because as you can see, it leads to greater social status along these 5 centuries. It is even an absurd to consider more than 80% of Brazilians closer to the other Hispanic nations than actually to Portugal, and to simply mix the different identities and cultures of Hispanic Latin Americans, which are richer than people usually imagine, in the single umbrella of "quasi-European".

If the argument were that we experienced Iluminism in different ways, it would be far more convincing — also the certain 4 South American countries which surely possess westernized majorities (Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile), and in which there were big waves of post-18th century European immigration (and, less importantly, which were and are historically White-majority after it, one can say that it excludes Brazil now but Pardos are essentially Caucasian in descent given that the phenotype associated with whiteness in most cultures is associated with recessive genes), experienced pretty authoritarian regimes that were negative to its native young democracies. Nevertheless, many European countries in the post-1945 also experienced it (not saying about that infamous racial policies in South Africa and Australia), then why Portugal and Spain is not in our cultural group rather than "the West"? It'd makes more sense by the more convincing arguments. Lguipontes (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is Bulgaria and Romania being mentioned as western?

I simply do not understand it. I can see adding Argentina given their population. I can somewhat understand why a lesser populated country like Haiti would be removed (although it takes representation away from the West Indies).

Why add Romania and Bulgaria? By adding these two countries, you are telling people eastern Europe is the west. It is not the west. Even the limited amount of scholars mentioned in this article say it isn't. It's quite obvious eastern Europe is not the west. The region was once apart of the Second World which included all Communist and now ex-Soviet Bloc countries.

Most Eastern European countries share some of the major traits. A Slavic language, Orthodox Christianity (or traditionally) and being formerly Communist.

My mothertongue is czech and my country underwent communist period. Should I be considered as "easterner"?!! Nope! Fourty years of communist opression can not overshadow thousand years of previous history. After all, cold war is more than 20 years over.

The only country in eastern Europe to not match any of this is Greece. The only countries to only have one of these traits are the Baltic countries (ex-Soviet satellites), Hungary (Communist for only a brief time) and Albania/Kosovo (ex-Soviet satellites). Romania and Maldova match two of three (all except their Latin based language). Croatia also matches two of three (all except Catholicism). Bulgaria matches all three. Anyone who has spoken to the natives of this region would clearly notice that they'd be in disagreement with this statement.

Being apart of the European Union does not automatically make a country western. There are some overseas areas of the UK and France to this day you can argue maintain non-western identities in some capacity. The European Union is not the Western European Union. It includes all Europe. Westerners do not own the European continent. They just occupy the western and some of the central part of it.

Exactly. We Czechs occupy central part of European continent. And historically, culturally and politically, we are part of western civilization. WE ARE NOT EASTERN EUROPE!

Please post on here before making additions. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

On a similar note: the heading currently says the west includes "Western Europe (including Cyprus)". Cyprus is clearly western (Greek culture), but it definitely isn't in Western Europe and its small size doesn't warrant it being mentioned in the heading of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.228.15 (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be mentioned. Technically, Greece is not in western Europe either so if Cyprus were to be mentioned, Greece should be too. You do not have to be in Western Europe to be apart of the west. There are overseas collective territories of France off the African coast and in Asia which can be considered the west given their political status and immense social contact with the mainland.

Where I disagree with you is that Cyprus is clearly western. Besides there being a presence of Turkish culture in part of the country, it is arbitrary if Greek culture itself is western. They are primarily Orthodox and located in the Balkans touching either predominantly Orthodox or Muslim countries.

Personally, I think the west tries to claim Greece as western as a way to try to take credit of the long ago historical accomplishments of Greece and their income level. Greece was apart of the Orthodox countries influenced on the eastern side of the Great Schism. For a long period of time, they had more to do with eastern Europe, Egypt and Ethiopia than western Europe. The only argument of Greece being western is it's contemporary involvement with western Europe compared to eastern Europe apart of the Soviet Bloc. This is a weak argument.

I'd also say that we should not say all of central Europe is apart of the west. Saying all of central Europe which would include Poland (not western, they are Slavs and ex-Soviet Bloc), Hungary (debatable), Slovakia (not western), Slovenia (not western) and the Czech Republic (not western). By no coincidence, all these countries are the wealthier eastern European countries apart of the EU. Some westerners have this bias toward wanting to claim those with higher incomes even when they know it is a lie. It is unethical. It'd be more appropriate to phrase it as part of central Europe. Central Europe really isn't a necessary term though. People know where western and eastern Europe start and end because of borders. The Czech Republic geographically comes more west than to how east Austria expands. They are still regarded as eastern and western Europe, respectively. It's just socially constructed names which have gained acceptance in time. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I am from Czech republic. Being Slav does not mean being non-western. Where do you invent such foolish idea that slavic language is disqualification from western civilization. We Czechs are part of western civilization because of our culture and history. For more than thousand years, we have belonged to western culture. For fourty years, we were oppressed by communist dictatorship. Do you think that fourty years of oppression can overshadow previous thousand years of rich history?!! By the way cold war is over.