Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
The concept of "Western countries"
It seems to be a euphemism for countries full of white people, whether they're geographically western or eastern compared to some line or location. (I'm fairly certain Australia is considered Western.)
Comments
Middle East and North Africa aren't considered Western states, despite being full of white people.
^ Shh, the white people of Western countries don't know that.
No, they're not white, they don't speak white people languages!
Oh, they do, they just don't speak western-European white people languages.
Yeah, I think talking about developed and developed countries makes more sense than putting them into eastern and western categories, partly because I feel like that helps explain where Japan, Australia, and New Zealand fit. Plus, "western countries" being a more or less completely artificial distinction geography-wise (e.g., Africa is just as far west as most of Europe is and if anything the Americas are much more "western" than Europe is) does not help things.
I agree with INUH that what people mean by Western countries is usually just ones that have been culturally influenced by Europe, but I feel like the East/West distinction tends to invite unfair generations about what people in those countries are actually like.
So, what should we call them instead? Europe-influenced countries?
I think the East/West divide can be useful in some circumstances. For instance, it's definitely useful in the comparison of artistic productions, philosophies and the like. While it can be using for the purposes of othering (and by goodness has been), it can be very advantageous to set another people apart for the purposes of analysis. For instance, if I want to know why the Japanese came up with the story-driven video game and America produced the first-person shooter, that requires some degree of anthropological study where each culture has to be taken in context of its influences.
Of course, with globalisation, the East/West divide will begin to lose meaning and eventually fade out of relevance, but commercial flight's lifespan can still be measured in decades and the internet itself is about my age. We've got a ways to go until establish glorious uniculture post-race society, and until then the East/West divide will have to be taken into account for some purposes.
What is the commonly accepted definition of "white people", anyway? I've even seen sources claiming that people from the Mediterranean, Balkans and even Russia aren't white, which goes against all common sense. From what I understood, there seems to be an incredibly racist idea going on about the "whiter than white" people from wealthy Western and Northern European countries.
Personally, while I see their use, I'm not a fan of terms like "white", "black", "Asian" or what-have-you. I prefer to think of my own ethnicity as the sum of my origins rather than a pseudo-genetic descriptor.
I've never identified as white, myself. Just Serbian.
It does kind of bother me when people use the "western world" or the "eastern world" as though the countries encompassed in these terms are all similar, since they really aren't.
In particular, I often see people using "western world" as a synonym for the US. If you want to say that something is the case in the US, say that it's the case in the US, instead of trying to add legitimacy to your statement, by implying that this is also the case in all of Europe. Maybe it's because some of these people just assume that said cultural standards are also the case in all of Europe, in which case they are simply wrong. Recently, I read through some of all the "content violation threads" on tvtropes and it really annoyed me how some people conflated "western cultural standards" not only with American cultural standards, but even with American fucking law and regulations. That's not western, that's American and the two are not the same.
Alex,
I think the East/West divide can be useful in some circumstances. For instance, it's definitely useful in the comparison of artistic productions, philosophies and the like. While it can be using for the purposes of othering (and by goodness has been), it can be very advantageous to set another people apart for the purposes of analysis. For instance, if I want to know why the Japanese came up with the story-driven video game and America produced the first-person shooter, that requires some degree of anthropological study where each culture has to be taken in context of its influences.
You make a good point about how there are differences worth noting for the sake of explaining the effect that cultures can have on how certain regions' societies, art, and such develop. Still, I wonder if you could point out those cultural contexts without having to continue the East/West distinction.
I feel like being more specific by talking about say Southeast Asian philosophy or Southeast Asian art is a lot more descriptive and creates less confusion than using words like Eastern more generally, partly because people tend to agree about what Southeast Asia is while they might have trouble drawing the line between East and West. Of course, from what I can tell, even in Southeast Asia, the Arab world, North America, or Western Europe cultures are not always quite as uniform as they may seem.
By the way, I definitely agree with mathias about the problems of conflating American stuff with the "western world" in general, especially since sometimes the U.S. can be pretty exceptional (in a good or bad way) compared to countries in Europe.
This is kind of a hangover from the Cold War era, when The West (or First World) was the US and its allies, the East (or Second World) was the Soviet Union and its allies and everyone else was the Third World. The fact that these expressions derive from politics/history rather than geography or culture explain why they don't make a lot of sense in geographical or cultural terms.
And there are people in North Africa/the Middle East who speak European languages, notably French in Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and I believe Lebanon. For that matter, parts of the Middle East (notably Turkey and Cyprus) have European status for some political purposes.
It's probably more useful to categorize countries into developed ("first-world"), developing (I'd call these "second-world"), and undeveloped ("third-world").
^ That's not exactly unproblematic either...
first, second and third world terminology should have died with the cold war, really.
But if we don't have simple, identifiable markers like "developed" and "undeveloped" countries, then how am I going to be able to see in black-and-white long enough to justify bombing innocent civilians??
By learning to stop seeing in black-and-white long enough to categorize things into black-and-white categories, and thus realizing the futility of categorizing things into black-and-white categories in the first place?
Yes, that was my point.
CountryPumpkin, what's the point of being sarcastic and condescending when most of your audience already agrees with you again?
There's no point in either of those things when they don't agree, either.
I agree with CountryPumpkin, but it's not a very good debate tactic is is more likely to frustrate people who might come around to our perspective than convince them of anything.
But I don't do it that much. I thought the sarcasm in my post was rather evident. Sorry
Most importantly: It's not funny.
Internet sarcasm used to get me in a load of trouble. I've learned to tone it down since then, luckily. It's a lot less funny than you may think, since a huge bulk of its humor depends on factors that can't be effectively displayed on an internet forum, such as timing or voice tone.
@CountryPumpkin: The sarcasm in your posts is extremely evident, yes, but that's because you basically dredge up an extreme strawman of whatever it is you're mocking and make said strawman do lots of stupid things.
But just because it's evident doesn't mean it really adds much to the conversation, or is entertaining. The point I get from your highly sarcastic posts is that you really, intensely hate whatever it is you're mocking, but I don't really get much additional information. And it really isn't funny either.