Why are Brazil & Argentina not considered Western countries? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13843124
I was reading an article at The Economist magazine and a paragrah really startled me:

"China’s arrival has improved Africa’s infrastructure and boosted its manufacturing sector. Other non-Western countries, from Brazil and Turkey to Malaysia and India, are following its lead. Africa could break into the global market for light manufacturing and services such as call centres. Cross-border commerce, long suppressed by political rivalry, is growing, as tariffs fall and barriers to trade are dismantled."

I started to google this information about Brazil not being an western country and I became even more shocked when I find out that Brazil and Argentina are not considered western countries but... Japan is.

Can someone explain this to me? How come christian countries like Brazil and Argentina with free market economies and a white race majority not being considered western countries? Is this total lack of knowledge about these 2 countries from the british/american perspective? How can Japan be "more western" than 2 nation created by westerns themselves???
#13843139
Well it depends on how you define the west.

There are many ways. Economically, religiously, government policy, the free world, an amalgam of all of those. There is no concrete "West".

If the Economist is looking at it from an economic or economic standard viewpoint, then japan is more western then Brazil, the reverse is true if you look at it from a religious angle.

Personally, I'd say you have the core Western states, Europe with the USA, Canada, and Australia almost always included. Then there are fringe or peripheral western states which may be very closely aligned, a mixed cultural background, or a partial adoption of what are "western" values and/or policies.

There are some reasons why people may not consider Brazil Western. Personally I think Brazil is still ironing out it's past and still developing it's role in the world, in western culture, or if it chooses outside of western culture. That's the thing with culture, it changes and it has as much to do with self identity then how others (the economist) identify you. Until recently Brazil has been almost completely inward or locally focused, as it's economy expands and Brazilians take a larger role in world events it will be clearer how Brazilian identity themselves.
#13843386
It's economical, cultural, and geopolitical.

Argentina and Brazil are impoverished nations and are largely unaffiliated with the first world. It doesn't help when Argentina makes threats about invading and annexing a part of the United Kingdom.

There isn't any country that is "free market". Russia and Ukraine are white and market economies, but they're not considered western nations. South Korea, Japan and Singapore are often considered western, though they are not European.
#13843734
Argentina and Brazil are impoverished nations and are largely unaffiliated with the first world. It doesn't help when Argentina makes threats about invading and annexing a part of the United Kingdom.

There isn't any country that is "free market". Russia and Ukraine are white and market economies, but they're not considered western nations. South Korea, Japan and Singapore are often considered western, though they are not European.


I disagree. Argentina and Brazil are considered non-Western for a few reasons. Yes, they are unaffiliated with the First World, but also, they are considered non-white and/or consisting of a population that has too large a number of native non-white citizens. They are geographically in the New World, rather than the Old, but unlike the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, indigenous culture and race is still viewed as far more of an influential driving force.

Thank God for Andrew Jackson, I suppose.

Russia and Ukraine are Western nations. Any European nation many consider Western. Turkey isn't European, before anyone makes that jump.

South Korea, Japan, and Singapore are not Western nations. "Western" is not simply a synonym for "success".

Japan with its kanji and rich Shinto history is Western? Western is also not the equivalent of Westernized.
#13843897
Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, and because some white Westerners don't like to be reminded that even Western countries can have significant non-white populations.


What else do we not like to be reminded of?
#13846571
Trust me, there is absolutely nothing non-western about Brazil or Argentina...

The Economist is a British publication and, as such, they have kind of a tendency to enforce a British-centered view of the world. And that includes having former British colonies considered "civilized" western countries, but not former Spanish and Portuguese colonies.

If you go to Spain, or Portugal, you will see a huge debate about this, and their publications are more likely to refer to all of Latin America as western. Anti-Anglocentrism is quite important to Portuguese nationalism, since they consider that Mozambique joining the Commonwealth represents Portugal losing its cultural influence in the former Empire, for example.

Far-Right Sage wrote:I disagree. Argentina and Brazil are considered non-Western for a few reasons. Yes, they are unaffiliated with the First World, but also, they are considered non-white and/or consisting of a population that has too large a number of native non-white citizens. They are geographically in the New World, rather than the Old, but unlike the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, indigenous culture and race is still viewed as far more of an influential driving force.


LOL
I love the fact that you seem to think you know anything about Brazil (or Argentina) when all your remarks about it show a complete ignorance about the subject.

I have never seen a Brazilian indian. There are more indigenous Americans than Brazilians, both proportionally and in absolute figures. 15% of New Zealand is composed by Maoris. And a large part of the remaining 85% have some degree of Maori ancestry. The Maori language is official in NZ and growing in popularity even among whites. 99% of Brazilians are Portuguese-descended and speak Portuguese.

Saying that the indigenous culture is viewed as more influential than the European one in Brazil either means that you have no idea where Brazil is, you have never been here, or you are a 12-year-old KKK member who thinks the US is part of Europe. Like I have said a million times, the demographics of Brazil are quite similar to that of the US. Both are multiracial countries with a shrinking white majority, an important black minority of about 10% of the population and an irrelevant indigenous population. Both are countries with a mixed culture, based primarily on European culture, but with an important African contribution (especially to music, in both cases: jazz, blues, rock, bossa nova samba, choro... all african-influenced musical genres that became popular in each country).

Argentina and Uruguay are actually whiter than Finland or Estonia, which not only have plenty of Asian genes, but also speak Asian languages.

Russia and Ukraine are Western nations. Any European nation many consider Western. Turkey isn't European, before anyone makes that jump.


Russia and Ukraine are not Western nations... I agree that they should be considered such, but most people agree that the Schism, the expansion into Asia and the rise of communism created a distinct cultural area in Eastern Europe...

In my opinion that is irrelevant since the fall of communism, but most people disagree...

Something you seem to fail to understand, FRS, is that the West (actually, the Occident would be a better term) is defined on cultural grounds, not genetic ones. All European and American nations are mixed in origin. Baltic nations, for example, received a large impact of Asian genes, given the Mongolian and Uralic expansions into the area. "Romanic" peoples are the product of centuries of interaction between celts, romans and germanic invaders. The same is also valid for most continental Germanic areas. A lot of Norwegians have some Sami blood, that is, from a non-European ethnic group. In countries like Mexico and Peru, there is a large indigenous impact, but obviously the European culture prevailed. In those cases, I might agree with a semi-Western definition, since the native heritage is seen as being just as important ad the colonial spanish one.

Now, in countries like Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, the US and Canada, the indigenous contribution, while existing, is minimum. Uruguay has a 0 native population. And, in Brazil, indigenous influence in culture remains significant only in toponyms and other names, such as Itaipu, for example. Kind of like the US, with its unpronounceable place names, such as Milwaukee and Massachusetts. Countries like Chile and Paraguay have a strong indigenous cultural heritage, but a stronger European ethnic/genetic heritage.

Also, please keep in mind that the average Brazilian is 70% European, 20% African and 10% Amerind. The average Argentinian is over 90% European. And I'm talking about genetics, not culture. Culturally, the non-European influence in those countries is minimum. Saying that Portugal is Western but Brazil isn't or that Italy and Spain are but Argentina isn't sound so stupid as arguments that the only thing you will achieve by doing so is a lot of laughter.

And, also, please keep in mind that southern Brazil is a lot whiter than Southern France AND the Southern US...

So, the next time you want to make wild contradictory claims like that, my suggestion is that you either research a bit about the subject before doing so or keep your mouth shut, that way you will avoid saying bullshit like that...
#13847279
In terms of cultural kinship, both Brazil and Argentina are part of the general Western cultural tradition. If one bases their notion of "Western" on this alone, then both countries are Western.

If one bases their definition of "Western" on economic achievement, however, the lines are more blurred. Neither country is considered a "high-income country" by the IMF, although both countries have above-average levels of economic development.
#13847280
Far-Right Sage wrote:Russia and Ukraine are Western nations. Any European nation many consider Western. Turkey isn't European, before anyone makes that jump.

I've never heard of Russia or Ukraine being considered western before. Does being white constitute as being 'western'?

Smertios wrote:99% of Brazilians are Portuguese-descended and speak Portuguese.

The Brazilian census says over half of Brazil is black and Amerindian, while whites and mixed fit in to the same 48.43% category. You have a very delusional view of your own country.

Reminds me of the Argies on 4chan always arguing about how white they are. Why does it matter if most of the country isn't of European origin?

Lightman wrote:Brazil and Argentina's national cultures and literary canons come mostly from two clearly western national cultures and literary canons, so yes, they are western.

Sharing a European language doesn't constitute as being western. Otherwise most of Africa would be considered western.
#13847415
Captain Sam wrote:The Brazilian census says over half of Brazil is black and Amerindian, while whites and mixed fit in to the same 48.43% category. You have a very delusional view of your own country.


lol half of Brazil is amerindian? :lol: there are less amerinds in Brazil than in the US...

All blacks and mixed-race Brazilians have some Portuguese ancestry. Recent genetic studies showed that self-classified blacks in Brazil have about 40%-50% of European genes, and relatively few (<10%) amerindian genes. It is not rocket science to analyze the data and see that virtually all Brazilians are mixed-race, even the ones that have a white phenotype. Virtually all Brazilians descend from Portuguese people.

The recent census indicates that about half of Brazil is actually white. Actually, the exact figures were 47.3% of Brazilians being white. 43.1% self-classifying as "brown" (seriously, there is no multiracial category in the Brazilian census, since the categories are based on skin color, not ancestry). recent genetic studies also showed that those people that self-classify as brown actually have 60%-70% European ancestry.

Not that the race matters the slightest, since my point here is that basically all Brazilians descend directly from Portuguese colonists..

Trust me, I know my country much better than you ;) Please study more before making these ridiculous claims that blacks constitute half of the Brazilian population... I bet you have never even stepped in Brazil, have you?

Reminds me of the Argies on 4chan always arguing about how white they are. Why does it matter if most of the country isn't of European origin?


It seriously doesn't matter if we are white or not. I always strongly advocate miscegenation, in order to avoid racial tension.

What matters is the fact that we are predominantly Portuguese-descended, indigenous and black culture didn't influence our culture more than the European one. If we were mostly Yoruba-descended, spoke Yoruba and practiced Candomblé, I'd have no problem acknowledging that we are not Western. The problem is that we are not. Brazilians are direct descendants of Portuguese settles, who mixed with Amerindians, Africans and European immigrants through the 5 centuries of Brazilian existence. Genetically, we still are around 70% European, though that is pretty irrelevant. Brazilians have the most varied phenotypes in the planet (one of the reasons why Brazilian passports are the most faked, since absolutely anyone can pass as a Brazilian). But we are still ethnically, genetically and culturally descendants of Portuguese settlers.

Sharing a European language doesn't constitute as being western. Otherwise most of Africa would be considered western.


He is talking about sharing an European literature, not an European language. What you don't seem to understand is that Brazil and Argentina are not Mexico or Peru. Fortunately or unfortunately (it seriously doesn't matter), the indigenous component wasn't important in the formation of our culture. And even ethnically, Brazilians have, on average, only 10% of Amerind genes. In the regions where the Amerind component remained strong up to the early 19th century, they have only 20% Amerind admixture. Indigenous peoples were mostly absorbed prior to the start of European immigration or genocided (i know this is not a verb, btw, but it should be).

The African component is more relevant, though Brazilians are, on average, just about 20% African. And keep in mind that we are talking about genetics, not culture. And I'm only coming to this point because you yourself started mentioning it. Basically, saying that Brazilians are not western because we have some amerindian and african admixture is just as ridiculous as saying that Finns and Estonians are not Western, because they have about 15% Asian genes. Or that Portugal and Spain are not Western, because lots of Arabs and Berbers crossed the Mediterranean to live there when they ruled the Iberian Peninsula.

And if you do not believe me, I can easily gather dozens of articles on genetic studies, though wikipedia has a good summary on a few of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_people#Genetic_studies

Culturally, on the other hand, we are just as European as the US. Indigenous influences remain strong only on place names: Itaipu, Itaúna, Abaetuba, Amapá, Paraíba, Pará... Milwaukee, Massachusetts, Dakota, Alaska, Alabama, Tucson, Oklahoma. African influence is strong mainly in black majority areas (the black belt in the US, state of Bahia in Brazil). Besides that, Africans influenced basically popular music in both countries: Jazz, Rock, Blues, R&B... Samba, Bossa Nova, Choro. Besides that, the culture is predominantly European in both cases.

The only real difference between Brazil and the US, in how the Europeans influenced the countries is the fact that miscegenation took place on much higher levels in Brazil. And even then, we got the second largest European immigrant population in the Americas, just after the US.

I'm not lying when I say that most Brazilians (actually, virtually all) are predominantly European- and Portuguese-descended. It is just the way it is. If we were Chinese, I'd have no problem saying we were Chinese. But we aren't. We are a New World people, composed mainly by Europeans, Africans and Natives, pretty much like all other countries in the Americas, from Canada and Greenland to Argentina and Chile.

Seriously, why do people like you and Maas think you know more about Brazil than I do? Seriously, I go out everyday. I see Brazilians everyday. I know how we are like. I know how our culture is like. I also have studied plenty about our ancestry and origins... We, with our 70% European, 20% African and 10% Amerind ancestries are just as Western as Finns with they 85% European and 15% Asian ancestries. I'd even go as far as saying that we are much more western than them, since our culture is based on the Southern European one, while theirs has a large Russian/Slavic/Eastern European influence. And I'm damn proud of the minor yet relevant contribution Africans and Amerinds did to our culture and ethnic composition.

And, as a matter of fact, most of Africa does NOT speak European languages. Only the economical centers of African countries have a native Indo-European-speaking majority. In the rest of continent, European languages are learned basically as a second language. Most of Sub-Saharan Africa speak Niger-Congo languages. And, unlike Brazilians, very few of them are direct descendants of European colonists and/or immigrants. What to say of those whose heritage is predominantly European. They are virtually no one, quite different from Brazil, where they are virtually everyone...

Brazil is neither Angola nor Mexico, seriously...

If you wanna be taken seriously, don't tell a surgeon how to perform a surgery. Ask, politely, about the things he knows that you don't ;)
#13847498
I thought Turkey had a portion of its territory in Europe? So this would qualify it as part European, I guess.

While I'm at it, the population of Argentina is mostly from Italy, Spain, plus a mix of other groups, from Jews to South African Boers to Hmong from Laos. I don't recall ever seeing an Amerind born in Argentina (did see some Tehuelches in Neuquen, who came over the Andes on horseback when I was close to the location where the rugby players had been praticing cannibalism).

Finally, I get the Economist, so I read it all the time, and they have been using the term "West" to mean "nations allied with the American axis", which of course means Canada, most of Europe and Japan, Australia, etc, but not Russia even though its capital is in Europe, and of course not Argentina or Brazil. The Economist would put Brazil and Argentina in "the West" if they had sent troops to Iraq and had been voting in the UN to back Israel-centric US foreign policy, I assure you.
#13847610
Captain Sam said:
"The Brazilian census says over half of Brazil is black and Amerindian, while whites and mixed fit in to the same 48.43% category. You have a very delusional view of your own country.

Reminds me of the Argies on 4chan always arguing about how white they are. Why does it matter if most of the country isn't of European origin?"



LOL, he is so wrong. Brazil has the third largest white population in the world. 51.7% of the population is white, 7% is black, the rest is mixed or asian. Amerindian brazilian population represents 300 000 people, less than in the US.

Smertios' answer was pretty good. It's funny how most americans and british are so naive about Brazil. They think Brazil is just another Mexico's clone. They even think that brazilians speak spanish. Homer Simpson would be proud.
Last edited by Soulflytribe on 09 Dec 2011 01:44, edited 2 times in total.
#13847694
Otebo wrote:When we in the Anglosphere refer to the the West we generally mean something along these lines:

Image

(Taken from here)


You do understand that the map is wrong, right? First because Huntington didn't include any analysis for Australia and NZ (though I guess it was implied that he considered them Western). And he also considered that Latin America and the "Orthodox Civilization" were part of the Western one wit potential to become separate civilizations on their own, depending on regional policy in the next few years, and is something for future consideration.

Basically, Huntington was arguing that Latin America was part of the West yet it was separating now, after the Cold War, just like Eastern Europe. I don't think any serious scientists have ever considered the Western World to have ever excluded Latin America. If you take a look in the wikipedia article for Western World, in no moment it does consider Latin America not to be part of it, except for a small section discussing Huntington's thesis. I seriously think that this discussion only exists in internet forums. I haven't really found much about Latin America not being part of the West in any academic publication. Obviously, I didn't check all and I didn't look extensively for it, so I could be wrong.

And btw, what the heck? Papua New Guinea is Western but Latin America isn't? :lol:

Soulflytribe wrote:Captain Sam said:
"The Brazilian census says over half of Brazil is black and Amerindian, while whites and mixed fit in to the same 48.43% category. You have a very delusional view of your own country.

Reminds me of the Argies on 4chan always arguing about how white they are. Why does it matter if most of the country isn't of European origin?"



LOL, he is so wrong. Brazil has the third largest white population in the world. 51.7% of the population is white, 7% is black, the rest is mixed or asian. Amerindian brazilian population represents 300 000 people, less than in the US.

Smertion's answer was pretty good. It's funny how most americans and british are so naive about Brazil. They think Brazil is just another Mexico's clone. They even think that brazilians speak spanish. Homer Simpson would be proud.


Hey. As much as I love your current avatar, being a Brazilian monarchist myself, I feel like I have to tell you that the mods here are quite rigorous about avatar policy, so, if you do not want them to get mad at you, you will have to get an avatar that is a picture of a human face in black and white.

I was going to use the imperial coat of arms as an avatar, but, when I read the rules, I ended up putting a picture of Viscount of Rio Branco, who was prime-minister of Brazil in the 19th century. Now I have changed it to a picture of Joaquim Nabuco, who was not only the most influent liberal in Brazil, but also a proud monarchist :D
#13847747
When people think of the west, they do not think of Latin America. Canada, the United States, Western Europe and ANZAC are what are considered western. They're all rich developed nations with a tightly shared history and culture. They're also allied to one another. Perhaps you see yourselves as western, but others don't. Mexico, Colombia and South Africa aren't considered western despite having European languages and part of the population being descended from Europeans. So why would Brazil or Argentina be an exception?

Papua New Guinea and the other pacific states are in a different shade of blue/purple.

@XogGyux A deterrence weapon only has value i[…]

The War on Cuba Part I and II

I wonder, what does Kelsey think about returning […]

I felt sad for the Queen having to sit by herself.[…]

It's quite shameless with what ease people dehuman[…]