[Victoribus Spolia]

As native brit I could say the same thing about north americans. "Technically they speak... etc" Of course Africa did get a dose of westernisation, but it perhaps was not a sufficiently large dose to completely change them. America had a heavier dose of westernisation from the sustained Spanish and Portuguese colonisation as much as North American received from other Europeans actually.

But at least the U.S. considers itself western, as do any Canadians that aren't cucks or foreign. Latinos have embraced themselves as the victims of western colonial oppression and have distinguished their identity from the west. If there was a pan-western nationalist movement, most latinos would opt out.

Ah so it is that they are less successful than there North American cousins that makes hesitant to admit them into the western club?

No, they are less successful than ALL of those that are openly western, including Europe, generally speaking. Plus, the incompetency to creating a prosperous nation in spite of available resources has been symptomatic of non-western nations and attitudes.

It doesn't matter immigration policy is a national policy not a western one. They can be as western as anyone and still be refused entry for any number of reasons.

Sure, but Americans have given their main concerns for voting for Trump as "Fear of Cultural Displacement," If we shared a common western culture, this wouldn't have been the main fear, but it would have been economic concerns or security concerns. Americans would not have the same opposition to unvetted white-English immigration and that is just a fact (unless such threatened jobs or security). Americans don't want Mexicans in because of major cultural differences and attitude differences. Something that should not exist if we shared a common civilization.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because of their participation in post-colonialist movements against western powers. Which assumes the us v. them distinction between oppressors and the subaltern.

Are you under the mistaken impression that western nations cannot have a colonial relationship with other western nations?

We do what?

We consider ourselves to be part of western civilisation.

If this was your intention, why did you bring it up in the thread to begin with?

Because you ignored demandsfor evidence in the other thread.

Likewise, there is nothing to reply to at this point, unless you correct your mere dismissal of my point from earlier or wait for my wife to post tonight. Fact is, dismissals are not arguments and I really don't see the point of debating that point anyway. Who cares if someone does or does not think something was controversial, it has been pretty controversial in that thread and that is what really matters now.

No, it was not even controversial in the thread. No one said it was not okay to be white or even thought it was racist, even though it was an obvious troll attempt by racists.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Are you under the mistaken impression that western nations cannot have a colonial relationship with other western nations?

This is called the "Poisoning Of The Well" fallacy. Clean it up and then I will answer. I am in no mood for your self-aggrandizing attempts at condescension of which you are intellectually unqualified to be attempting in the first place.

We consider ourselves to be part of western civilisation.

Who is we?

Because you ignored demandsfor evidence in the other thread.

No, you just dismissed the evidence I provided, which is not the same thing.

No, it was not even controversial in the thread. No one said it was not okay to be white or even thought it was racist, even though it was an obvious troll attempt by racists.

I thought you were waiting to post on this in the appropriate thread?

Anything less than 100% approval for the phrase "Its Okay To Be White," ought to be controversial. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "controversial" and I can tell you if it is controversial or not by your own standard....

[Potemkin]

Anything less than 100% approval for the phrase "Its Okay To Be White," ought to be controversial.

Nobody in that thread was denying that the assertion, "It's okay to be white" was factually correct, when interpreted literally. The point we were making is that that assertion has a sub-text, which is not only controversial but is intended to cause controversy. That sub-text being, of course, the implication that the historical wrongs committed by the white majority against racial minorities in the past should be ignored or glossed over in the interests of racial harmony, where 'racial harmony' in this context necessarily means maintaining the hegemonic dominance of the white majority in American society.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is called the "Poisoning Of The Well" fallacy. Clean it up and then I will answer. I am in no mood for your self-aggrandizing attempts at condescension of which you are intellectually unqualified to be attempting in the first place.

No. Poisoning the well os a type of ad hominem. I never claimed that you were wrong because you are apparently a bad person or anything like that.

My point was that western nations can be in a colonial relationship with other western nations, and opposing said colonialism does not automatically make one not western.

Who is we?

We Latinos. As in, we Latinos consider ourselves to ge part of western civilisation, and thus your argument that we do not is incorrect.

No, you just dismissed the evidence I provided, which is not the same thing.

I thought you were waiting to post on this in the appropriate thread?

Anything less than 100% approval for the phrase "Its Okay To Be White," ought to be controversial. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "controversial" and I can tell you if it is controversial or not by your own standard....

Please see my reply in the appropriate thread.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. Poisoning the well os a type of ad hominem. I never claimed that you were wrong because you are apparently a bad person or anything like that.

That is correct, but starting an argument by alleging that I am a holder of mistaken notions is poisoning the well. Proof of this is shown in that, under the nature of your argument, If I attempt to defend such a notion, I am, by definition mistaken. (thus you preemptively 'poisoned' the conversation by disqualifying objections preemptively as mistaken) This assumes your question was rhetorical of course, if it wasn't you would be guilty of the fallacy of "Complex Question."

My point was that western nations can be in a colonial relationship with other western nations, and opposing said colonialism does not automatically make one not western.

I never argued otherwise, I argued that post-colonialism as a movement seeks to dichotomize western nations as distinct from the indigenous, the oppressed subaltern. Poles could argued that they were colonized and oppressed by other nations, but they generally identify as western would shun post-colonial language. They would not view themselves in the same category as a subaltern. Obviously America was a colony of England, but Americans are very proud of their western identity and would not regard themselves as the victims of an oppressor class of a white-Christian-patriarchy.

This of course brings me to your next statement:

We Latinos. As in, we Latinos consider ourselves to ge part of western civilisation, and thus your argument that we do not is incorrect.

Whether a latino that emigrates and integrates in Canada would apply to what I am referring is subject to debate itself, and though I am tempted to charge you with an unsubstantiated and likely anecdotal claim, I will instead ask you for evidence that the majority of Latinos, in latin america, regard themselves as part of western civilization as defined by its common ethnic, cultural, and religious heritage. I have personally known may latinos who are offended by the very insinuation as its was "the Spanish imperialists" that raped their ancestors, imposed their religion, and spread disease and war throughout their native lands...

Now, I will concede that many upper-class, especially landed gentry, in South America do not feel this way, but they are a minority and they only feel that way because they have maintained there Spanish (and therefore European) pedigree over the centuries and have remained entrenched in world politics and European high culture. This is not the same for the guerrillas in the jungles of Colombia and the Che Guevaras of the world.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is correct, but starting an argument by alleging that I am a holder of mistaken notions is poisoning the well. Proof of this is shown in that, under the nature of your argument, If I attempt to defend such a notion, I am, by definition mistaken. (thus you preemptively 'poisoned' the conversation by disqualifying objections preemptively as mistaken) This assumes your question was rhetorical of course, if it wasn't you would be guilty of the fallacy of "Complex Question.

I never argued otherwise, I argued that post-colonialism as a movement seeks to dichotomize western nations as distinct from the indigenous, the oppressed subaltern. Poles could argued that they were colonized and oppressed by other nations, but they generally identify as western would shun post-colonial language. They would not view themselves in the same category as a subaltern. Obviously America was a colony of England, but Americans are very proud of their western identity and would not regard themselves as the victims of an oppressor class of a white-Christian-patriarchy.

This still does not mean that Latinos are not western or that they consider themselves to not be western, nor does it mean that western nations cannot be incolonual relati9 ships with other western nations.

This of course brings me to your next statement:

Whether a latino that emigrates and integrates in Canada would apply to what I am referring is subject to debate itself, and though I am tempted to charge you with an unsubstantiated and likely anecdotal claim, I will instead ask you for evidence that the majority of Latinos, in latin america, regard themselves as part of western civilization as defined by its common ethnic, cultural, and religious heritage. I have personally known may latinos who are offended by the very insinuation as its was "the Spanish imperialists" that raped their ancestors, imposed their religion, and spread disease and war throughout their native lands...

Now, I will concede that many upper-class, especially landed gentry, in South America do not feel this way, but they are a minority and they only feel that way because they have maintained there Spanish (and therefore European) pedigree over the centuries and have remained entrenched in world politics and European high culture. This is not the same for the guerrillas in the jungles of Colombia and the Che Guevaras of the world.

No, you are simply incorrect, and your attempt to shift the burden of proof is not an argument.

If you wish to provide evidence for your claim that you know me and mine better than we know ourselves, go ahead.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This still does not mean that Latinos are not western or that they consider themselves to not be western, nor does it mean that western nations cannot be incolonual relati9 ships with other western nations.

This is not an argument in response, this is an assertion based on a conclusion you have reached for reasons you have not disclosed. There is nothing here to respond to.

No, you are simply incorrect, and your attempt to shift the burden of proof is not an argument.

If you wish to provide evidence for your claim that you know me and mine better than we know ourselves, go ahead.

Given that your standards of what qualifies as acceptable evidence is highly suspect, based on past conversations I have had with you, I am not apt to respond to what seems to be an emotional response based on some sort of amusing subjective sense of identitarianism that has neither been proven nor substantiated. I cannot know that you are a Latino, or that other Latinos in south america would consider you a part of them, or that your claim of identification with the west (which you made) can even be demonstrated....thus all of your remarks above are irrelevant.

However, that the "Occident" does not include South America as a whole is discussed in Wikipedia on the same matter which does not include South America in the west on its map of the "west" even though it includes the United State and Australia. So quit acting like i'm just making this shit up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

Furthermore, here is an interesting article discussing the same point.

http://nationalinterest.org/article/its ... ation-2675

This would mean that there is a point-of-contention among both Latinos and Westerners regarding the civilizational identity of South America.....so a better question for you would be, Why is that?

[Pants-of-dog]

This is not an argument in response, this is an assertion based on a conclusion you have reached for reasons you have not disclosed. There is nothing here to respond to.

Can western nations be in a colonial relationship with other western nations? Yes or no?

Given that your standards of what qualifies as acceptable evidence is highly suspect, based on past conversations I have had with you, I am not apt to respond to what seems to be an emotional response based on some sort of amusing subjective sense of identitarianism that has neither been proven nor substantiated. I cannot know that you are a Latino, or that other Latinos in south america would consider you a part of them, or that your claim of identification with the west (which you made) can even be demonstrated....thus all of your remarks above are irrelevant.

However, that the "Occident" does not include South America as a whole is discussed in Wikipedia on the same matter which does not include South America in the west on its map of the "west" even though it includes the United State and Australia. So quit acting like i'm just making this shit up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

Furthermore, here is an interesting article discussing the same point.

http://nationalinterest.org/article/its ... ation-2675

This would mean that there is a point-of-contention among both Latinos and Westerners regarding the civilizational identity of South America.....so a better question for you would be, Why is that?

So no evidence. Okay.

I realise other people do not consider Latin America to be part of the west.

But I have yet to read a good reason why.

From your wiki link:

From a cultural and sociological approach the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are directly derived from and influenced by European cultures, i.e. Europe (at least the European Union member states, EFTA countries, European microstates);[19][20] in the Americas (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Mexico, United States of America and Uruguay), in Africa (South Africa), and in Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). Together these countries constitute Western society.[8][32][33]

Even your own link contradicts your claim.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Can western nations be in a colonial relationship with other western nations? Yes or no?

I already answered this, I will not answer it again.

So no evidence. Okay.

I realise other people do not consider Latin America to be part of the west.

But I have yet to read a good reason why.

Your opinion is irrelevant, whether you think it is a good reason or not is of no consequence. I could say the opposite, now what?

Even your own link contradicts your claim.

That is not a contradiction, that is from the article's analysis of varying perspectives on the criterion for what includes someone in the west. Thus, some say, from the cultural-sociological approach to definition (as the fucking article says), that such latin american countries ought to be included. Likewise, from a linguistic approach latin america would be included in the west. This argument is immaterial to the point and that the general consensus in the wikipedia article is to not included latin america in the occident while allowing some dissent on the matter. This is also shown in the actual map for the west provided in the introductory section of the article.

Therefore, you are wrong, again. If this is the quality of your analysis when given links and articles, I will see no reason to provide them to you in the future. You cannot draw conclusions from texts without context. A text without a context is a pretext.

You are trolling , you are not looking for a serious discussion. The length and character of your posts are indicative of this and hiding a clearly shallow understanding.

[Pants-of-dog]

I already answered this, I will not answer it again.

So, if the answer is yes, then the mere fact that Latinos oppose colonialism does not mean they are not western.

Your opinion is irrelevant, whether you think it is a good reason or not is of no consequence. I could say the opposite, now what?

You could make a claim that is supported by evidence.

That is not a contradiction, that is from the article's analysis of varying perspectives on the criterion for what includes someone in the west. Thus, some say, from the cultural-sociological approach to definition (as the fucking article says), that such latin american countries ought to be included. Likewise, from a linguistic approach latin america would be included in the west. This argument is immaterial to the point and that the general consensus in the wikipedia article is to not included latin america in the occident while allowing some dissent on the matter. This is also shown in the actual map for the west provided in the introductory section of the article.

So you are going to ignore the text and focus on a single image based on one person’s definition.

I think Huntington crafted his definition specifically to support US colonialism in Latin America, and apartheid in SA, since he was an outspoken advocate of these two things. I am not surprised that you would use a definition crafted by a neo-colonialist.

Therefore, you are wrong, again. If this is the quality of your analysis when given links and articles, I will see no reason to provide them to you in the future. You cannot draw conclusions from texts without context. A text without a context is a pretext.

You didn’t provide text or context. You just linked to a wiki article that didn’t support your points.

You are trolling , you are not looking for a serious discussion. The length and character of your posts are indicative of this and hiding a clearly shallow understanding.

Writing a lot of crap doesn’t make your arguemnts stronger. It just fills them with crap.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So, if the answer is yes, then the mere fact that Latinos oppose colonialism does not mean they are not western.

I already addressed this as well. It begged the question then, and it begs the question now. I never disqualified Latin America merely because it was colony, otherwise I would have disqualified America as well.

You could make a claim that is supported by evidence.

You wouldn't know what evidence was if it smacked you in the face.

So you are going to ignore the text and focus on a single image based on one person’s definition.

When did I ignore the text?

I think Huntington crafted his definition specifically to support US colonialism in Latin America, and apartheid in SA, since he was an outspoken advocate of these two things. I am not surprised that you would use a definition crafted by a neo-colonialist.

Genetic Fallacy.

Should I disqualify any Harvard professors you cite because they will likely be Marxists? Plus, Huntington was not a neo-colonialist when he wrote his book on the Clash of Civilizations, which is clear from the text. His definitions are quite reasonable and have weight in scholarly circles. Quit acting like your only evidence of "muh people...." is somehow a superior argument, its not.

You didn’t provide text or context. You just linked to a wiki article that didn’t support your points.

It supported my points just fine.

Writing a lot of crap doesn’t make your arguemnts stronger. It just fills them with crap.

So that makes your argument what? A shit stain? Please.

My point is that your arguments show a general unwillingness to actually engage in conversation, to counter-balance theories and weigh their merits together as intellectuals who simply disagree working towards truth. You have no interest in that kind of dialogue, you want to make negative assertions and nothing more. You are a troll and your general approach shows as much.

[Pants-of-dog]

I already addressed this as well. It begged the question then, and it begs the question now. I never disqualified Latin America merely because it was colony, otherwise I would have disqualified America as well.

Then why does colonialism disqualify Latin America?

You wouldn't know what evidence was if it smacked you in the face.

Is it part of academic training now to insult people instead of putting forth solid arguments?

Your anger with me is irrelevant, but understandable since you are supposedly an academic and I am a mere craftsperson and i still beat you in debate.

When did I ignore the text?

When you didn’t bother quoting anything from the wiki link, including the text i quoted that contradicts your claim.

Genetic Fallacy.

Should I disqualify any Harvard professors you cite because they will likely be Marxists? Plus, Huntington was not a neo-colonialist when he wrote his book on the Clash of Civilizations, which is clear from the text. His definitions are quite reasonable and have weight in scholarly circles. Quit acting like your only evidence of "muh people...." is somehow a superior argument, its not.

Yeah, it must be a huge coincidence that his hypothesis just happened to perfectly align with US foreign policy. And that he worked with them extensively. And that the US profited from this neo-colonialism.

It supported my points just fine.

...except the bit I quoted that directly contradicts your claim.

So that makes your argument what? A shit stain? Please.

You are obviously angry. You should step away from the computer for a while.

My point is that your arguments show a general unwillingness to actually engage in conversation, to counter-balance theories and weigh their merits together as intellectuals who simply disagree working towards truth. You have no interest in that kind of dialogue, you want to make negative assertions and nothing more. You are a troll and your general approach shows as much.

Since this is all about your feelings towards me, I am simply going to ignore it.

[Oxymandias]

@Oxymandias,

1. You may not want "The West" to be a tangible concept, for whatever reason I have no idea, but people do have a notion of what that word means and it does have a practical use. Engaging in sophistry about the origination of ethic groups in antiquity that are now understood by themselves and others in an entirely different manner than in said times is not helpful. Ethic groups self-identify over time, such are historically-manifested categories of self-conception and patriarchal descent. Southern Italians believe themselves to be Italian and identify as such and as "European," Whether they may be distantly related to Semites or Japhethic Ionians doesn't matter to that identity or their sense of belonging.

2. The Byzantine Empire was not considered part of the "West" since it split from western Christendom during the "Great Schism" and would later fall under Islamic rule and remain under it for centuries. I would argue for the start of a united western consciousness at the battle of Tours, though the Crusades probably helped to solidify western identity as a concept contra the Byzantines and the Islamic world. Though, this concept has evolved and fluctuated over time.

3. The notion of "Christendom" as used in the west typifies this. That you use "Finland" as a counter-example really doesn't bother me, there are plenty of "toss-up" states and ethnic groups in this equation. Russia is an obvious one, but also much of the eastern Slavs, the Magyars in Hungary, etc (Hungarian and Finnish are both Asiatic and not Indo-European languages). Eastern Orthodoxy has often been viewed as "non-Western" by western religious thinkers as both the papists and the protestant subscribe to the "latin theology" of St. Augustine and the Filioque conception of the Trinity. These are all matters of debate, but do not detract from the main conception as I have defined it.

4. I don't know why you are making a point about race, that there are multiple ethnic groups in the west is quite irrelevant to my point as various ethic traditions contributed to the cornucopia of western thought, but by European, I am referring to those ethnicities that have, in majority, occupied western Europe since the time of their conversion to Christianity in the middle-ages. Whether we debate the "european-ness" of the Germanic tribes that migrated into Europe after separating from the Aryans in the Caucus region of Eurasia is quite irrelevant. Those people that have en masse occupied western Europe since their conversion to Christianity in the middle ages are western peoples and share in that worldview which likewise originated from multiple earlier sources.

5. What it means to be western is common and colloquial, but by no means ambiguous even if it is a historical rather than a scientific concept. Westerners are Europeans of western Christendom who share a common Judaeo-Christian religious morality, a Greco-roman legal and philosophical framework, and Nordo-Germanic sense of expansionism, the latter's influence extending as far south as Italy via Germanic conquests, and as far west as Wales and as far East as Lithuania thanks to the vikings. Through conquest, conversion, and classical education, the three main facets I identify saturated these peoples in Western Europe and in the age of colonialism they attempted to spread such to other regions and such influences, now turning secular and decadent, have through media and neo-colonialism (mainly from the U.S.) continued to influence non-western peoples even to this day.

6. This is what I mean by western, this is generally what other people understand as western even if their conceptions are weak due to a lack of education. This definition is sufficient enough to inspire a sense of nationalism and pride on the part of westerners and is tangible enough to conjure up anti-western rhetoric on the part of middle-easterners and Africans. If it is sufficiently tangible for these ends, then it is in fact a tangible concept. Otherwise, what the fuck are we even talking about?

I really do not have time to debate about nothing. If you have a real point here then lets debate that, but what are we even doing here in this conversation?

1. That is a remarkably good point. The West it self doesn't have to exist, just that people believe that it exists regardless of it's relative vagueness. However I still believe that the supposed "history" of the West is in fact a narrative. For example, your next point is in fact a narrative and I will get into that shortly. However before I do I must explain why I still think the West is a narrative. The West is a narrative because it attempts to evoke a sense of unity during time periods in which there was no sense or even conception of unity. I will get into that in detail in the next point.

2. The issue is that the Byzantine Empire under your definitions should in fact be a part of the West as not only has it been greatly influenced by Judeo-Christian thought but also has a much more extensive influence of Greco-Roman philosophy. You do happen to realize that no body knew of the Crusades at the time except the Crusaders right? This is Medieval times, you didn't even have the printing press at the time, how would it be possible for information to spread that quickly in such a short amount of time to create a united Christendom. Such a romanticized notion would only be brought up much later during the 18th to early 19th century, disappear, and then reappear later in the late 21st century. Simply put, the only people that felt that they were united were the Crusaders, no one else until much later.

Also don't give the Reconquista or Albigensian Crusade as examples since we both know that they happened a several hundred years after the Italian Crusades happened.

And the Byzantine Empire was conquered by Muslims, over 1000 years after the Great Schism. The Abbasid Caliphate and the early Ottomans couldn't even conquer it.

3. Isn't the only specification you have that they share a common Judeo-Christian morality and Greco-Roman philosophy? If so, then Russia and Eastern Europe fits it really well. They share all these things, some Eastern Europeans even consider themselves Western in culture as well, I have met several Europeans that have so. They often told me that "the West" was just an economic notifier created during the Cold War and that they are truely "culturally western".

4. The Middle East significantly contributed to "western thought". It contributed architectural cliches and styles found in European countries, it influenced holidays such as Christmas and Easter from Persian civilizations, it influenced western philosophical thought radically by providing not just Greco-Roman texts, but it's own original ideas which influenced philosophers such as Aquinas, Spinoza, Kant, Descartes, and Hegel. Therefore, why should the Middle East not be a part of the West?

5. I actually am arguing that it is not a historical concept. It is certainly a modern concept, maybe even post-modern however.

Also I don't want to discuss colonialism. We sort of share somewhat similar views on colonialism except you kind of go much farther than I did. I assure I would love to discuss with you colonialism but just not right now.

6. The issue is that the Middle East does not see the West in the way you see it. The term "West" is the modern term for "Christendom" for the Middle East similar to how in Europe the term "Islamic world" is the modern term for "Saracen lands". It does not possess the same meaning that you express so that is not a worthy example. I have never seen anyone in the Middle East assume that Europe was united in any shape or form outside of simple aesthetics.

I just had a train of thought I decided to follow. I apologized if I dragged you into it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Then why does colonialism disqualify Latin America?

Never said it did. Perhaps you should try reading.....its fantastic.

Is it part of academic training now to insult people instead of putting forth solid arguments?

Its in my academic training to debate with qualified persons and with those who want to actually debate and learn, if you are such a person I will debate you, but you just do not seem interested in it. Prove me wrong.

Your anger with me is irrelevant, but understandable since you are supposedly an academic and I am a mere craftsperson and i still beat you in debate.

I am also a craftsperson, but I am also an academic, at the end of the day what makes an intellectual is their learning and their etiquette, your weakness on the latter distorts whatever you may have regarding the former. I think you are probably quite bright, but you seem content to refuse having meaningful dialogue with me and others and seem to prefer making affirmations to the contrary for the pure sake of doing so and acting in a manner consistent with trolling.

When you didn’t bother quoting anything from the wiki link, including the text i quoted that contradicts your claim.

Yes and you did so poorly and it revealed a desire to grasp for anything, even out of context, to contradict me. Once again, this shows a desire on your part not to debate, but to disagree for the sake of disagreement.

You are obviously angry. You should step away from the computer for a while.

Since this is all about your feelings towards me, I am simply going to ignore it.

No feelings necessary, Just observations. You are wise to ignore the point though, you may reveal more of your shortcomings to the general public here on PoFo and we can't have that now can we?

[Pants-of-dog]

Never said it did. Perhaps you should try reading.....its fantastic.

Then what did you say?

Its in my academic training to debate with qualified persons and with those who want to actually debate and learn, if you are such a person I will debate you, but you just do not seem interested in it. Prove me wrong.

I am also a craftsperson, but I am also an academic, at the end of the day what makes an intellectual is their learning and their etiquette, your weakness on the latter distorts whatever you may have regarding the former. I think you are probably quite bright, but you seem content to refuse having meaningful dialogue with me and others and seem to prefer making affirmations to the contrary for the pure sake of doing so and acting in a manner consistent with trolling.

Yes and you did so poorly and it revealed a desire to grasp for anything, even out of context, to contradict me. Once again, this shows a desire on your part not to debate, but to disagree for the sake of disagreement.



No feelings necessary, Just observations. You are wise to ignore the point though, you may reveal more of your shortcomings to the general public here on PoFo and we can't have that now can we?

Sure. Whatever.

On topic:

The wiki article clearly describes that Latin America is part of western civilisation, though it also points out that there is some debate about this.

The only part of the wiki article that does support your claim is a single graphic made by someone with a clear political agenda.

You even agree that there is no qualitative difference between Anglo America and Latin America when it comes to the significant criteria determining inclusion in western civilisation: language, religion, history, etc.

You can go and talk about me for paragraphs and paragraphs, but that does not change the facts I have mentioned.

[Missus V. Spolia.]

I am a mere craftsperson

Is that what housewives are calling themselves these days?

[Pants-of-dog]

Is that what housewives are calling themselves these days?

Those of us trained in construction, yes. If it makes your husband feel better, he can tell himself he is being out-debated by a stay at home dad.

More importantly, I could be an alien racist dog and the facts I presented would still be just as correct.

[Victoribus Spolia]

he can tell himself he is being out-debated by a stay at home dad.

@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.

The wiki article clearly describes that Latin America is part of western civilisation, though it also points out that there is some debate about this.

The only part of the wiki article that does support your claim is a single graphic made by someone with a clear political agenda.

You even agree that there is no qualitative difference between Anglo America and Latin America when it comes to the significant criteria determining inclusion in western civilization: language, religion, history, etc.

You can go and talk about me for paragraphs and paragraphs, but that does not change the facts I have mentioned.

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.

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. I have provided scholarly examples of those who deny Latin America status as a western collect. This map represents my position, generally speaking.



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.

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:

Then what did you say?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

[Victoribus Spolia]

1. That is a remarkably good point. The West it self doesn't have to exist, just that people believe that it exists regardless of it's relative vagueness. However I still believe that the supposed "history" of the West is in fact a narrative. For example, your next point is in fact a narrative and I will get into that shortly. However before I do I must explain why I still think the West is a narrative. The West is a narrative because it attempts to evoke a sense of unity during time periods in which there was no sense or even conception of unity. I will get into that in detail in the next point.

2. The issue is that the Byzantine Empire under your definitions should in fact be a part of the West as not only has it been greatly influenced by Judeo-Christian thought but also has a much more extensive influence of Greco-Roman philosophy. You do happen to realize that no body knew of the Crusades at the time except the Crusaders right? This is Medieval times, you didn't even have the printing press at the time, how would it be possible for information to spread that quickly in such a short amount of time to create a united Christendom. Such a romanticized notion would only be brought up much later during the 18th to early 19th century, disappear, and then reappear later in the late 21st century. Simply put, the only people that felt that they were united were the Crusaders, no one else until much later.

My only critique of this is that the crusades were mentioned in the reformation period, but also, to say that only the Crusaders knew about the crusades is being a little simplistic and misunderstands the nature of how identities were formed for societies prior to popular government and consent. Realize, this was a time when whole regions would often be converted to a different religion at the will of a king following his conversion (something i'm not entirely opposed to). Those who funded and participated in the crusades included the major kings of all Europe, by the authority of the pope and the bishops and at the request of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios. This was not a minor event and having those men alone is more than sufficient for it to represent and identity-shift event, for these were the men that would define the identity of their people.

And the Byzantine Empire was conquered by Muslims, over 1000 years after the Great Schism. The Abbasid Caliphate and the early Ottomans couldn't even conquer it.

The Schism occured in 11 the century, the Byzantine Empire fell in the 15th century, so where are you getting a thousand years? So what are you talking about? Are you referring to the split of western and eastern empires? That is not what I am talking about, I am talking about the schism between the Western and Eastern churches over the Trinity which was only a few decades before the Crusades and with the Crusades help gave the West its own identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

Isn't the only specification you have that they share a common Judeo-Christian morality and Greco-Roman philosophy? If so, then Russia and Eastern Europe fits it really well. They share all these things, some Eastern Europeans even consider themselves Western in culture as well, I have met several Europeans that have so. They often told me that "the West" was just an economic notifier created during the Cold War and that they are truely "culturally western".

No, I would argue the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches in the Great Schism and the Crusades form the Division and the terminology. The formation of the Western or Latin church distinguished the western nations as their own thing.

The Middle East significantly contributed to "western thought". It contributed architectural cliches and styles found in European countries, it influenced holidays such as Christmas and Easter from Persian civilizations, it influenced western philosophical thought radically by providing not just Greco-Roman texts, but it's own original ideas which influenced philosophers such as Aquinas, Spinoza, Kant, Descartes, and Hegel. Therefore, why should the Middle East not be a part of the West?

Well it does not meet my definition, of course.

I just had a train of thought I decided to follow. I apologized if I dragged you into it.

Its okay, you seem a little more distracted than usual, everything cool?