Victoribus Spolia wrote:@Pants-of-dog,
If you call making a long list of denials a debate, there sure, you are far superior at make negative assertions without evidence....but if you want to have a real debate I am sure we can set it up someday on a topic that I really care to debate. We can have opening and closing statements, a cross-examination section, the whole deal. Then we will see who is a superior debater my friend.
I am likewise trained in construction and machining FYI. You have gained some amount of respect in my eyes for that. Not that it matters to you what I think.
...and yet you wrote several paragraphs telling me what you think of me.
Actually the wikipedia article has been edited since our last exchange because the map was changed in the introductory section in your favor from Huntington's map to Llosa's map. What a coincidence, you wouldn't happen to be a Wikipedia contributor now would you?
Likewise, the Huntington map still exists on the article, but now only in the "other views" which is a different version to what was in the introductory section last time we spoke.
Who cares? Regardless of who changed it, Huntington’s partisan definition is already part of the discussion, due to the influence of his “clash of civilisations” hypothesis.
How does this have anything to do with the facts as given?
Not that I care, my point is that there are scholars who affirm this position, that define the western world to the exclusion of Latin America. You have unilaterally denied that such a position is valid and asked for evidence that Latin America is not part of the west.
And I pointed out that Latin America has western religion, language, history, political systems, and social mores. I believe you did too.
I have provided scholarly examples of those who deny Latin America status as a western collect. This map represents my position, generally speaking.
And I already discussed Huntington’s map, and why it based on US foreign policy needs and not things like shared history, religion, language, culture, philosophy, etc.
And you actually cited only two things: the wiki article and another piece by some guy who also claims it is part of the west but is wondering if it will ally with the US or Europe in the ongoing war on terror.
That is sufficient, now if you disagree, than why Latin America should be considered part of the west ought to be the subject of our debate as both views have scholarly support. At which point, the merits of either your argument or mine ought to be weighed based on the soundness of our premises and conclusions via the laws of reason, for who supports which view is ultimately irrelevant.
Now regarding my "criteria of inclusion" my criteria was stated earlier in this thread and does not include language, so I don't know where you got that, but rather was stated as the combination of Nordo-Germanic expansionism, Judeo-Christian Religious Morality, and Greco-Roman Legal and Philosophical conceptions, with the ethnic character being of those that lived as regional majorities in Europe at the time of their conversion in the middle-ages. I also stated that such an identity was a historical manifested self-identification, which would imply, that self-denial of inclusion in the west would qualify one for not being in the West.
Why Nordo-Germanic expansionism and not expansionism of all western countries? This seems arbitrary. You would then have to exclude Quebec from western civilisation.
And yet again, I need to point out that Latinos do include themsleves in the west.
Furthermore, my critique of Latin America being included in the west was stated as being a "tough call" for me, so this isn't a dogmatic issue for me as I care more about the sub-category of the Anglo-Sphere, but my argument against Latin America was multi-pronged and I will restate my reasons for you in response to this:
1. What I stated was more specific than you are assuming. For instance, I never discounted Latin America on the grounds that it was a former western colony. This should be clear by the fact that I do consider the United States, Canada, and Australia as part of the west.
What I argued is that post-colonial thought has permeated the self-identification of Latin Americans. Thus, even though Canadians were under the dominion of England, they do not consider themselves the subaltern because white Canadians have not culturally appropriated the post-colonial conception of oppressor colonist v. oppressed subaltern which distinguished indigenous peoples from their colonial invaders.
South America has been much different along this strain, men like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro joined with other men such Marcus Garvey, Ho Chi Minh, and philosophers such Jean-Paul Satre in developing joint efforts at forming an anti-western intellectual coalition on behalf of indigenous peoples in their respective nations.
Anti-colonialism is not anti-western, much like being against racism is not the same as being anti-white. Castro and Guevara were communists, after all, which is also a western ideology. Nor is anti-colonialism solely about protecting indigenous peoples. Since western countries can have a colonial relationship with other western nations, anti-colonialism can also be about protecting western countries form other western countries.
The common theme in post-colonialism is the distinction between "Us" and "Them," in the identification. Caribbean and South American thinkers began viewing the west, the white-Christian-patriarchy, as the cause of the problems and South American thinkers joined with Vietnamese and Central African figures in this ideology. Communist revolutions in these regions were an attempt to liberate themselves from the west, not such much to liberate the proletariat as in European Marxist movements.
No, this is a complete mischaracterisation of socialist struggles in Latin America. It is not about identity or us versus them white Christians. It is about a reaction to neo-imperial and neo-colonial interventions by the US and Europe targeting Latin America for its wealth, and using anti-colonial strains of Marxism as part of said reaction. Your analysis completely ignores these material and historical conditions.
My point is that this makes such regions non-western because they have formulated their own cultural identity. language and cultural influence alone does not make one western, for if that were the case, much of Africa would be said to be part of the west, but that is not the case.
Canada and the USA have also formulated cultural identities separate from Europe, and are part of western civilisation.
Also, it is more than just language and cultural influences. It is also history, religion, political and legal systems, and social mores.
2. Another point I made in disqualifying Latin America is economic outcomes in spite of resource-availability. Latin America on the whole has failed to lift itself from third world status in the way the west has for a long time. To me this is symptomatic of non-western attitudes towards equity, infrastructure, and the environment which permeate Latin America. Latin American political and economic attitudes are strikingly similar to those of central Africa and this seems to indicate they share more in common civilizationally than Latin America does with, lets say, Spain and Portugal. Once again, a big part of this is the desire on the part of Latin Americans to "go there own way" and formulate their own identity.
And now you are completely ignoring the history of colonialism, imperialism, and their modern counterparts and their impact on Latin America. As usual, you are ignoring historical facts and looking solely at unverifable wishy washy feelings type stuff like “attitudes”
3. Lastly, the reasoning for the above seems to be explained partly by ethnicity and genetics. Aside from the very pure-bred upper class Spanish ethnics still ruling much of Latin America, most Latin Americans are Mestizos, Native Americans, or Black/Multi-Racial. This is VERY UNLIKE the majorities in Canada and the United States. The Americans descended from settlers in the U.S. and Canada are ethnically very similar to Europeans after centuries of separation and thus being proud of inclusion with Europeans as an identity is quite easy. This cannot be said of Latin Americans. For, where in the United States and Canada natives were displaced, in Latin America they were integrated and native blood represents the majority of Latin American ethnics.
Hence, per my definition of European peoples in western civilization, it cannot really be said that Latin Americans ethnically represent peoples who held regional majorities during the time of their conversion in the middle ages.
So genetics now define culture? Lol. Black US citizens are now not part of western civilisation either.
Thus for Latin Americans, the Spanish are not REALLY their people in the sense that a white guy in Massachusetts will often be able to say of the English or Germans that settled his hometown. Thus, Latin Americans are prone to see their identity as unique and are susceptible to post-colonial propaganda. The fact that higher class Latin Americans are less likely to be mixed or Mestizo stems from the fact that Roman Catholicism placed greater emphasis on caste and the stifling of class mobility, while also being more open to miscegenation than Protestantism which is more nationalistic and less universalistic in outlook theologically., but ultimately it is how Latin Americans view themselves that has made them different and why I LEAN TOWARDS not including them in the west as my position.
Yes, the class system (another aspect of western civilisation) is quite strong in Latin America. Funny how in this regard, Latin America is much closer to its European roots than North America.
To be frank, I am just going to completely dismiss your very wordy way of saying that only white people are western.
Give me your reasons why you think they should be included and we will have an actual debate, since that is what you claim to really want right? However if you respond with single sentences simply positing that you disagree, well then, I will know you have no intention to debate and I will not longer respond to you.
Latin America shares language, religion, history, legal and political systems, class systems, social mores, and other attributes with other western nations. Just as much as, and in some cases more than, North America.
Latinos also self identify as western.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...