http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/us/28huntington.html - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/us/28huntington.html

 

A great politcal scientest indeed and one whose ideas are respected by me.

 

I've been meaing to actually pick up some of his books to read but I haven't had time to recently    

However, he was obviously an orientalist tool of his masters, quite like Bernard Lewis. Not a great scientist or thinker at all. 

Many talk about his theories but few have actually read him. I am one of those few. Interestingly, Latin America is one of the few things he is right about, when he says that it is not Western. Not so much because I belive what he believes, but because Latin America is not as developed as the Western countries.  

Now, the Latin American writer that really show Huntington was an intellectual pigmey was Carlos Fuentes. I invite you to read the following article where he really blows the right winger out.

 

Carlos Fuentes, the Mexican novelist, is a member of NPQ’s advisory board. Translation by Thomas D. Morin, Professor of Hispanic Studies, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

Mexico City—“The best Indian is a dead Indian.” “The best nigger is a nigger slave.” “The yellow threat.” “The red threat.” The Puritanism one finds at the base of WASP culture (White, Anglo Saxon, and Protestant) in the United States of America expresses itself, from time to time, with shocking color. Now, another of these forceful and freely expressed simplistic ideas can be added to the colorful expressions already mentioned: “The Brown Menace.”

The proponent of this idea is Professor Samuel P. Huntington, the tireless voice of alarm with respect to the menace that the idea of the “other” represents for the foundational soul of white, protestant, Anglo-Saxon United States of America. That there existed (and, still, exists) an indigenous-“America” (Huntington uses the United States as a name for the entire continent) prior to the European colonization is of no concern to him. That besides Anglo-America, there existed a prior French-“America” (Louisiana) and, even, a Russian-America (Alaska) is of no interest to Huntington. What worries him is Hispanic-America, the America of Ruben Dario, the America that speaks Spanish and believes in God. For Huntington, this brown danger is an indispensable danger for a nation that requires, in order to exist, an identifiable external menace. Moby Dick, the white whale, is a symbol of this attitude which, fortunately, not all North Americans share, including John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the North American nation, who warned his countrymen: “Let us not go out into the world in search of monsters to destroy.”

Huntington, in his Clash of Civilizations, discovers his necessary external monster (once the USSR and “the red danger” disappeared) in an Islam poised to assault the borders of Western Civilization, in an attempt to outdo the feats of Saladino, the Sultan, who captured Jerusalem in 1187. As a result, Huntington outdoes the Christian Crusade of Richard the Lion Hearted in the Holy Land. Huntington the Lion Hearted’s anti-Islamic Crusade expresses the profound racism in his heart and, in similar manner, his profound ignorance of the true kulturkampf evident in the Islamic world. Islam is not poised to invade the West. Islam is living, from Algeria to Iran, its own cultural and political battle between conservatives and Islamic liberals. It is a vertical battle, deep within, not a horizontal one of expansion.

The Mexican as exploiter | Huntington’s new crusade is directed against Mexico and the Mexicans that live, work, and enrich life in the northern nation. As far as Huntington is concerned, Mexicans do not live—they invade; they do not work—they exploit; and, they do not enrich—they impoverish, since poverty is part a Mexican’s natural condition. All of this, when taking into account the number of Mexicans and Latin Americans in the United States, constitutes a cultural threat for that which Huntington dares to mention: the Anglo-American, Protestant, and Anglo speaking white race.

Are Mexicans invading the US? No, they are simply obeying the laws of the job market. There are job offers for Mexicans because there is a North American labor need. If some day, there were to exist full employment in Mexico, the US would have to find cheap labor from another country for the jobs whites, Saxons, and Protestants—naming them as does Huntington—do not want to fill, since they have either surpassed these levels of employment, or because they have grown old, due to the fact that the economy of the US has passed from the industrial period, to the post-industrial, technological, information age.

Do Mexicans exploit the US? According to Huntington, Mexicans constitute an unjust burden for the US economy: they receive more than they give back.

All of this is false. California earmarks a billion dollars a year to educate the children of immigrants. But if it were to do otherwise—listen up, Schwarzenegger—the state would lose $16 billion a year in federal aid to education. Similarly, Mexican migrant workers pay $29 billion a year more in taxes than the services they receive.

The Mexican immigrant, far from being an impoverishing burden, as assumed by Huntington, creates wealth for all economic levels. At the most humble worker level, the expulsion of Mexican immigrants would be ruinous for the US. John Kenneth Galbraith (the kind of North American that Huntington cannot be) writes the following: “ If all the undocumented people in the US were to be expelled, the effect on the North American economy...would be nothing less than disastrous...Fruit and vegetables in Florida, Texas and California would not be harvested. The price of food products would rise to incredible levels. The Mexican people that want to come to the US are necessary, and clearly add to everyone’s well-being.” (The Nature of Mass Poverty)

On another level, the Hispanic migrant, as Gregory Rodriguez, from Pepperdine University, tells us, has the highest number of salaried individuals per family than any other ethnic group. So, too, is his level of family cohesiveness. The result is that, while the father of the family may have arrived barefoot and soaking wet, the descendents of migrants have attained income levels comparable to those of Asian and Caucasian laborers. By the second and third generation, 55 percent of Hispanic households are owners of their own homes, compared to 71 percent of white households and 44 percent of black households.

I would like to add to the figures given by Professor Rodriguez the fact that in Los Angeles County alone, the number of businesses created by Hispanic migrants rose from 57,ooo in 1987 to 210,ooo last year. Since 1990, the purchasing power of Hispanics has risen 65 percent. Furthermore, the Hispanic American economy in the US generates almost $400 billion a year—more than the Gross National Product of Mexico.

Do we Hispanics exploit or contribute, Mr. Huntington?

Mexican Balkanization | According to Huntington, the sheer numbers and customs of Mexican migrants will end up Balkanizing the US. North American unity has absorbed the European immigrant (including Jew and Arabs, who are not specifically mentioned by Huntington) because the immigrant of old, such as Chaplin in the movie of the same name, came from Europe, crossed the ocean and being white and Christian assimilated quickly into Anglo-Saxon culture and forgot his language and native customs, something which might surprise the Italians in The Godfather and the Central Europeans in The Deer Hunter.

No. Only the Mexicans and the Hispanics, in general, are separatists. These people have conspired to create a separate Hispanic American nation, the soldiers of a re-conquest of the territories lost in the Mexican-American War of 1848.

If we were to turn the page over, we would find English to be the most spoken Western language. Does Huntington ever think that this fact reveals to all a silent North American invasion of the entire world? Would we Mexicans, Chileans, French, Egyptians, Japanese and Hindi be justified in prohibiting English to be spoken in our respective countries? To stigmatize the Spanish language as a divisive, practically subversive, factor demonstrates the racist, divisive and provocative spirit of Professor Huntington.

To speak a second (or a third or fourth language) is a sign of culture throughout the world excepting, it would seem, in the Monolingual Eden invented by Huntington. To establish the requirement of a second language in the US (as occurs in Mexico and in France) would eliminate the Satanic effects that Huntington attributes to the language of Cervantes. Hispanic speakers in the US do not form impenetrable nor aggressive groups. They adapt themselves rapidly to English and, at times, conserve the use of Spanish, thus, enriching the accepted multiethnic and multicultural character of the US.

All in all, mono-lingualism is a curable disease. Many of us Latin Americans speak English without fear of being contaminated. Huntington presents us with an image of the US as a fearful trembling giant attacked by Spanish speakers. His tactic is fear of the “other,” so favored by fascist mentalities.

No: The Mexican and the Hispanic, in general, contribute to the wealth of the US. They give more than they receive. They wish to integrate themselves in the North American nation. They attenuate the cultural isolationism that has led the governments in Washington to so many disastrous international situations. They advocate a political diversification that has been brought about by Afro Americans, Native American, the Irish, Poles, Russians and Italians, Swedes and Germans, Arabs and Jews.

The Mexican menace | Huntington brings to the fore a musty anti-Mexican racism that I knew, all to well, as a child studying in the North American capital. The Volume Library, a one volume encyclopedia published in 1928 in New York, said the following: “One reason for Mexican poverty is the predominance of its racial inferiority.” “No dogs nor Mexicans allowed,” read the signs written on numerous restaurant facades in Texas during the Thirties. Today, the Latino electorate is seduced with mixed phrases in Spanish by many candidates, among them Gore and Bush during the last electoral process. It is an electoral campaign tactic (similar to Bush’s recent migration proposal).

But for us, Mexicans, Spaniards and Hispanic Americans, what is certain is that language is a factor of pride and unity. Five hundred million men and women speak Spanish around the world. But, it is not a fear factor, nor a menace. If Huntington fears the Hispanic Balkanization of the US and wishes to blame Latin American for its incapacity to establish democratic governments and economic development, we, at least, have lived without nationalistic separatisms since the dawn of Independence.

Perhaps what unites us is what Huntington believes disunites: the multicultural nature of the Spanish language. As Hispanic Americans and Spanish speakers, we are, also, Indo-European and Afro-American. We are the descendants of one nation, Spain, which cannot be understood without its racial multiplicity and Celt-Iberian, Greek, Phoenician, Roman, Arabic, Judaic, Gothic linguistic system. We speak a language with Celt-Iberian followed by Latin roots, enriched by a good portion of Arabic words and set in place by the Jews of the 13th century in the court of Alphonse the Wise.

With all we have mentioned, we are winners, not losers. The loser is Huntington, isolated in his imaginary land of Anglo speaking, white and Protestant racial purity. Even, if, in a curiously benevolent way, he offers his space to “Christianism.” Most assuredly, Israel and Islam are menaces to be equally condemned as are Mexico and Hispanic America, and, by extension today’s Spain, for their undesirable incursions into the old territories of Huntington’s Kingdom.

An idle question: Who will become the next Moby Dick of Captain Ahab Huntington?

 

 

 

 

 

So you don't like his ideas.....so what?  Disagree, but be adult about it.  The childish bashing of a prominent academic most of you probably never even read is ridiculous coming from a bunch of people hiding behind internet handles. 

 

 

 

Anyway many people criticised him while he was alive and broke him during real intellectual discussions (a thing you never heard about obviously). However he does have some sense in his exposition but that doesn't mean he got it right.

 

Al-Jassas

 

Hello,

 

I am not anonymous. My name is Omar Ernesto Vega Martínez. Id Card 7298829-9 from Chile. And I don't know why the fact the guy is dead should make us forget he was wrong.

The article above of Carlos Fuentes was published when he was alive and well, anyways.

 

Huntington anti-Hispanic bashing can't be forgotten by Hispanics who know where he pointed.

 

O. Vega, allias Pinguin

 

 

 

 

What exactly was this bashing about except the "civilizational separation" of Latin America from Iberia?

However, the true is we see ourselves belonging to the Western Civilization because we are part of it. What else we could be? You don't take Albania out of Europe because it is poor, or Mongolia out of East Asia because it is also poor. That's the critics against Huntington

 

I didn't say, nor did I imply, that he was immune from criticism.  Neither am I; nor are you.  However, this kind of attitude, when an idea is not fashionable, is very typical of our membership.

 

What I said was that this bashing is childish.  My opinion.  Huntington accomplished more in his life and career certainly than the majority of us, so we should not get all excited over ourselves in relation to him.

 

I am not a fan of universal history, so I doubt everything he thought is correct.  As to whether he "got it right" in some form, we might need fifty years to know that.  I'll be dead then, so others can check on it.

 

  

 

 

 

I read this article and I'm not satisfied with this "criticism" at all.

 

The main idea of Huntington is that the civilizational ideologies and self-consciousness are different. There is no doubt that a Mexican immigrant view himself differently from Americans and belonging to another cultural/civilizational entity.

 

What's wrong with that?

 

Huntington just pointed out that as long as this civilizational conflict exist there will be problems. As long as Mexicans living in the USA associate themselves more with Mexico that with the US there will be problems of cultural integration and potential conflicts.

 

What's wrong with this idea?

 

You can't of course take Albania out of Europe because it's poor, but you can view it differently based on civilizational/ideological/cultural approach because one can also say that Albania is a part of Islamic world.

The idea of Huntington of asociating the U.S. to the West while leaving Mexico besides is simply unacceptable. If Huntington had defined a regional culture and called it ANGLOSAXON Protestant culture, nobody would had complained with that, but he hadn't the courage to say it so. Mr. Huntington wanted the West for WASP people alone. That's were it hurt us.

No matter Mexican charros use large sombreros, they can also trace theirs culture to Iberia and Rome.

 

So, some similar origins don't imply absolute continuity. Huntington, actually clearly pointed out that the Western, Latin American and also Christian Orthodox (as he called) it as well as Islamic Civilization all have common roots; but this fact by itself doesn't negate all the differences that developed.

 

I see. You have the same oppinion than Huntington. Well, then the argument of Carlos Fuentes applies to you as well.

 

Sorry,

What is your point? Is it that you think that Latin American culture is the same with the US and European culture no matter what?

 

It's clearly wrong.

The indigenous roots argument is just trivial. In the U.S. you have 15% of people with African origen that have contributed quite a lot to the culture of the United State. You won't convince me they are Europeans. And even the president will be soon of that origin. Do you think that fact takes out the United States from the West?

 

Of course Latin American cultures (there are several) aren't the same than U.S. culture, but that also applyies to the U.S. with respect to Europe.

And try to go to Miami to see if the U.S. culture is the dominant there.

 

Latin American culture is similar to Iberian, Italian, French and Greek culture and the U.S. is closer to British, German and Scandinavian. So? Aren't both groups of countries located in Europe?

 

Anyways, It is not a matter of cultures but civilizations, and the Western Civilization is the origin of all the diversity you see.

 

 

No. I don't think so.

 

Originally posted by pinguin The indigenous roots argument is just trivial. In the U.S. you have 15% of people with African origen that have contributed quite a lot to the culture of the United State. You won't convince me they are Europeans. And even the president will be soon of that origin. Do you think that fact takes out the United States from the West?

 

Yes. I think puts the US aside. And I don't think that US culture is the same with European culture.

 

 

Originally posted by pinguin Of course Latin American cultures (there are several) aren't the same than U.S. culture, but that also applyies to the U.S. with respect to Europe.

 

I agree with that.

 

 

 

Originally posted by pinguin Latin American culture is similar to Iberian, Italian and Greek culture

 

There are very different degrees of similarities between them. And only Iberian culture can be called relatively quite similar to Latin America.

At the same time, Greek culture is kind of similar to Turkish and other "Levant cultures" and even to Russian culture to some extent. So there are many different degrees of similarities between different cultures which should be studied case by case basis. But, definitely, you can't just make them "the same" right away.

 

Originally posted by pinguin and the U.S. is closer to British, German and Scandinavian. So? Aren't both groups of countries located in Europe?

 

Europe has clear divisions within itself at different cultures and mentalities. It's a fact and I don't deny that.

 

Originally posted by pinguin Anyways, It is not a matter of cultures but civilizations, and the Western Civilization is the origin of all the diversity you see.

 

Here I don't agree at all. Cause obviously Latin Americans would feel much more comfortable with each other than with the US people of people from Europe, except perhaps Iberians. And here the difference between civilizations are revealed.

 

 

Listen, Latin America traces its cultural ancestry directly to the Roman Empire, which is the center and origin of Western Civilization.

That's not something we can say of the U.S., which traces its origin to a modest outpost of barbarian Celts, Saxons, et al.

 

Yes, life changes, some people goes up and other goes down, and not Southerners are poorer... but life continues changing, and who know, nobody owns the future.

 

 

Is the point here who is more barbaric and who is not? Is the point who is more poor or who owns the future?

 

Not at all.

 

If you think that Huntington was talking about some kind of superiority of the Western culture it's wrong again. He just talked about different civilizations; that's it.

 

And what is the point of bragging who is closer to the Ancient Rome?

 

Regardless of who is closer to the Ancient Rome, we clearly have several different civilizational patterns of development, one of which is the Latin American one. This is the point, but not that some of this patterns is more advanced, cultural, ancient etc.

 

All of them are equally rich and significant in my eyes.

 

Well. If we should be precise, because he actually wrote the same thing as you said. He wrote that one can view Latin America both as a subdivision of Western Civilization or a separate entity.  But for the political analysis the latter view would be more appropriate.

 

More over, while giving the definition of the Western Civilization he actually writes that it's usually dividied into 3 parts i.e. Europe, North America and Latin America.

 

So, I don't understand what is so bizarre in these statements?

 

Yes. You express a lot better exactly what I mean. Latin America is a region, not an independent civilization at all. Different from the U.S.? Of course. Most of the history it have been much poorer. Today is still poor but only in relative terms. Even more, there is not much in common between Latin American countries either, except the common background of Western Civilization.

 

What defines a civilization in historical terms?

Well, things like:

(1) Roots and common history.

(2) Language

(3) Alphabet or script system

(4) Religion

(5) Music

(6) Cultural heroes.

(7) Architecture

(8) Arts

(9) Literature

 

I challenge anyone that claim Latin America is not Western that finds, outside folk traditions of course, any of the above topics which is absolutely different from the West. Of course we have here some ancient civilizations like the Incas and Aztecs, but the U.S. has Kahokia and the Anazasis... so what's the difference?

 

Even more, if Americans knew would realize the influence of the United States uppon local culture is a lot more important than the Iberian, that Newton is a lot more known that Servet, and that Shakespeare is considered at the same level than Cervantes.

 

What about the "typical" Latin Art, like Siqueiros, Frida Khalo and others? Or "authentic" custom tales like "100 years of Solitude"? Well, those are cute folk products, but if you see who created them would realize easily the product was from Westerners. For instance, Khalo's father was a Jewish immigrant. What more Westerner than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bizarre is to claim Latin America is a different civilization. That's where every Latin American will disagree.

 

I agree with you we are a different region. In fact, we call our world with the name Ibero American World, and includes all Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries of the Americas and Iberia. In a very real sense it is equivalent to the English Speaking "Dominion" plus the U.S., which includes Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Anglo Saxon World. Similar groupings make sense when people speaks of Germanic countries, Scandinavia, Slavic countries, etc. But those are groups of nations with some cultural patterns in common and NOT CIVILIZATIONS.

 

The weird Huntingtonian idea that the West correspond to NATO doesn't make sense at all.

 

Not even in "racial" terms Latin America is different than the rest. That's something Americans should realize. Countries like the U.S. and Canada has as much people of non-European roots like Latin America, and in some cases even more. Not all Latinos wear "sombrero" either.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, that's the way Latinos love to fool around with outsiders. Latinos know that it is very highly they have native ancetry, but they aren't certain. Genetics show, but nobody knows for sure. However, they pride natives because they are locals. That's  the point

Latin America was founded mainly by European males and native females, which make the older and more prestigious aristocracie of the land. Later, like in the U.S., masses of European immigrants came. But who want to descend of immigrants? Everybody wants to descend of the first explorers and the amerindians that fought them!

 

I remember many times I said in Canada I have native ancestry and people didn't believe me . Once a boss told me, as sweet as he could, that my wife just resembled native americans . I said him -Of course, she is Indian-. My boss was so upset with my answer, not even today I understand why...

 

That's what we call a culture barrier, I guess.

 

 

 

 

But didn't I confirm that he actually wrote that Latin America IS a part of "Western Civilization" ?

 

Originally posted by hugoestr Most American Southerners will correctly see themselves as part of Western Civilization. Yet one could argue that their ethnic makeup, their particular brand of religion, their economic problems and political culture sets them apart as their own civilization.

Well, is it only economic problems and political culture? Don't just general culture and similar mentality set Latin American people apart?

Originally posted by hugoestr Although you do bring up a good point: if Huntington's uses "civilization" for "useful geopolitical worldview," then there is little disagreement here. Although it does beg the question why did he use "civilization" rather than what he really meant. Maybe he just used "civilization" as a marketing gimmick. After all, "Clash of Geopolitical Worldviews" lacks that nice ring to it

 

Perhaps civilization is not really the perfect definition for what he meant. As I see it what he means by "civilization"  is more like "similar mentality and culture."

 

But that's a cartoon. I protest with energy that every single place in Latin America is such poor.

 

I agree that in rural Mexico, Guatemala and Bolivia, and in the Favelas of Rio, people live in slums crowded 2 or 3 families in small flats. (Just like in some parts of Europe, outside the tourist routes, and many disadvantaged minorities, anyways; in the U.S. think in New Orleans, and in Canada just go to any Indian reserve, and you'll see the same). I also agree that MOST Latino immigrants come precisely from the lowest class of our societies, and usually lack education and skills.

 

But believing Latin America is all like that, and that a person from, let say, Santiago of Chile or Buenos Aires would be impressed by Madrid is just nonsense.

 

Even more, people outside the spanish speaking world should know that the largest producer of media (music, books, soap operas, etc) in this part of the world is not Spain but Mexico, that the largest manufacturer is not Portugal but Brazil and that the country that had more nobel prizes in science is not in Iberia but is Argentina.

 

 

 

In Peru, Chile, Argentina or Brazil, people of different social classes don't mix. They don't even live close beside at all.

I believe those Hispanics in Spain are perhaps less discriminated that poor people in South America. They share the same culture, but not the acceptance.

 

My grand parents and great grand parents grew up in a town where there were at least five Roman Catholic parishes, all serving a different ethnic congregation.  (German, Italian, Irish, Slovene, Croatian).  There may have been others as there were many Hungarians as well.  As the Mass was in Latin, and as many first generation immigrants learned little English, and some none, it took longer to integrate the immigrant through a normal and important cultural institution.  That happened more through succeeding generations going to schools together.  In that town the schools also assimilated Serbs, Bulgarian-Macedonians and eastern European Jews from various places.

 

Now the Mass is in English at the only Catholic parish left in that town.  Incidentally, a number of the newer resident parishoners are Mexican. 

 

As there is less isolation of immigrants due to ethnic congregations, and as Hispanic immigrants seem more devout than many of the rest of us, it may be that the Church could be instrumental in integration and in diffusing English since in many areas of the US, there are few Spanish speaking clergy to celebrate Mass in the vernacular.  The schools will continue to be a factor as attendance is compulsory.

 

Just a thought. 

 

I do find much of Huntington interesting, if controversial, but assimilating immigrants has not been a problem in the US, so I am not losing sleep over that.

 

  

 

They all went to school together, played sports together, went to dances and parties together; the guys went into the army and navy together in WW II, and they started to intermarry in great numbers after that.  Now you have to think closely who was who.

 

 

  

 

Anglo-American culture, nor British culture are the archetype, or definition of the West. The West is defined as a civilization rooted in Greek-Roman civilization and a Jewish-Christian religious tradition. And Latin America is both.

Originally posted by Bulldog There is a much stronger Native American presence in Latin America and they seem more proud of this heritage for example Mexico celebrates being a continuation of the Aztecs after overthrowing the Spanish and all native languages have official status.

 

The fact that there is a strong African presence in the United States and Britan don't take those regions out of the West. Even more, the fact that Irland celebrates its Celtic past and Norway its Norse past don't take those countries out of the West either.

So the argument that Latinos don't count because they are "Indians" it is the most absurd of all.

Yes, Latinos are proud of theirs local native traditions but they are regional things. A person from Mexico city perhaps is proud of its Aztec past, but somebody from Brazil would be of the Tupi, a person from Peru would be of the Incas, etc. All those people have no heritage in common but the Hispanic/Portuguese and therefore Western, civilization.

 

 

 

 

 

And never forget that Hispanics are descendents of immigrants as well. People that descend from multiple origins, some local and some from overseas, and that had assimilated already to the New World at theirs coutries of origin. Doing it one more time doesn't seem so difficult for them at all.

Pinguin Yes, Latinos are proud of theirs local native traditions but they are regional things. A person from Mexico city perhaps is proud of its Aztec past, but somebody from Brazil would be of the Tupi, a person from Peru would be of the Incas, etc. All those people have no heritage in common but the Hispanic/Portuguese and therefore Western, civilization.

But then can't most of Africa claim to be Western aswell? they common heritage most of Sub-saharan Africa has is speaking English or French and being Christian.

Do Latinos view Spain and Portugal as the motherland?

 

Pretending the West is only the NATO is an U.S. invention. Actually is exacly the same thing the U.S. did when they started to use the name "America" for itself, forgetting that the rest of the Hemisphere is also called America . The U.S. has always tried to pushed us aside, and that's the reason why most Latinos love so much the U.S., indeed

 

Who cares about your capitalistic achievements? Does capitalism converts Japan and Singapore in Western nations. That's a common confusion in the educational system of the U.S.. A mistake we don't make.

Originally posted by Bulldog ... There is a fundamental difference, the African presence is not part of the establishment or respected as being part of the founders of the U.S.A or U.K. I think Latin American countries can be proud that they stood up for indegenous peoples rights aswell in their revolutions, the natives seem to have been forgotten in the American revolution.

 

So, Barak Obama is not part of the establishement? Rock music is not part of the establishement?

Please make an add and put in the front of a main building of an  U.S. town that say: "black people is not part of the United States because the founding fathers were lilly rose white people ... just try it..

But then can't most of Africa claim to be Western aswell? they common heritage most of Sub-saharan Africa has is speaking English or French and being Christian. Do Latinos view Spain and Portugal as the motherland?

 

We not only view Spain or Portugal (depending of the country) as the motherland. We call it "Madre Patria" 

 

Subsaharan Africans for the most part don't have European blood. At most, they are Westernized peoples. In Latin America all genetical studies show European is the more widespread blood of all. We are descendents of colones and locals. That is the difference.

 

 And we don't "claim" to be Westerners. We are because heritage and rights.

 

Come on I have a family shield comming from Middle Ages' Spain! That's western. I bet you don't have anything similar...

 

 

 

In fact so-called "Westerners" in a very strict sense (Western Europe and the US) find it's much easier to communicate with Russians, Latin Americans and even Middle Easterners than with the people belonging to "Confucian" cultural realm. Capitalism and quality of life don't change the culture and mentality so radically.

 

Western civilization's definition is clear cut. The problem is that Huntington confussed the term "Civilization" with "Region". I agree there is regional difference; who could doubt it.

I can forgive common people makes those mistakes but Huntington was a top schollar. It is hard to believe he didn't know the difference... at least he made the mistake purposedly.

Originally posted by Bulldog ... Japan and Singapore have been Westernized, however, some of their business principles are very different to the U.S and if your to suceed in business there its advised you learn their way of doing things. .

 

Swidish people have a different sexual behavoir than Americans... does it mean they belong to different civilizations?

Originally posted by Bulldog ... The founding fathers were all white, black people were not involved or among the founding fathers and America made no connection to its native nations during its establishment unlike Mexico which claims to be a native revolution against the Spanish occupation. .

 

Well, the Chilean "founding father" was the son of the Irish governor of Chile, and was pale as paper and red haired. I bet that makes Chileans westerners, don't you think?

Originally posted by Bulldog ... This is whats important, if you percieve Spain or Portugal to be the motherland than their can be heritage in my opinion. This sounds similar to the Turks West of the Caspian Sea, whether they are right or not they claim as a nation their roots are in Central Asia. Now as they speak Turkic, have a Turkic history, are muslim and so on they have a strong claim although they also mixed with local people.

 

Without forgetting natives, we consider Iberia to be the Mother land, as much as Jewish love Israel or Americans perhaps Britain. In Latin America that feeling doesn't depends just in the genetical makeup of people, but it reflects the fact very few of our people lacks an Iberian ancestor. Two examples. When Evo Morales, the Aymara president of Bolivia took power. After some interesting native rituals, he went to a standard western ceremony of taking the presidency. There there were presidents of all Latin America and other places, and in a site of priviledge it was... the King of Spain!!

 

Another example, when a famous Brazilian "black" musician made a TV documentary about the music of Brazil, he didn't started in Africa, or native american tunes, but with the music of Portugal!!

 

Without forgetting our rich national native heritages, that each Latin country has, or the heritages of important minorities like Blacks, Japanese, Chinese, Italians, Germans, Brits, Irish, Jews, Palestinean, Polinesians, Gypsies and many others, the true is that the dominant culture of our countries have an Iberian root by far, and that is directly connected to Europe. As simple as that.

 

 

 

 

 

That very true. "Westerners" have a common way of thinking, no matter sometimes they don't agree each other in many points, or they took different possitions. A Latin American, for example, given knows English, understand perfectly the thinking patterns of Americans, and viceversa. When one move to the east things get more strange, but still Arabs are closer than East Indians. However, East Asia is another world, where it is a lot easier to make mistakes because of misunderstanding.

 

Latin America consider itself part of the West. However, we know we are different from non-Latin Europeans. In here, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian people aren't perceived as foreigners at all. Because we share basically the same culture. With French is something in between. The rest of Europe, though, it looks more strange -to us- the farther it is from the Western Mediteranean.

 

However, certain "northerners" have historically fit quite well here. Irish catholic people, were always very welcomed. German catholic and Polish people also addapted easily.

Even more, it is strange that Latin America, and South America in particular, have felt at critical periods of time closer to Germany and Russia, rather than Britain or France.

 

 

Today society is going global, and in a real sense, all the world is becoming "westernized".

However, when you analize those regions according to history and study the basic cultural heritage, you soon realize there are some societies closer than others.

 

The differences are in things like writing systems (alphabet, idographic), language techniques (tonal, others), grammar (indoeuropean, others), religion (God centered, abstract "forces" centered), customs (using forks and knives versus chopsteaks), architecture (stone versus wood), artistic tendencies (pursiut of beauty verus armony), etc.   

 

Of course, in engineering and mathematics there is not much ethnic stuff that divide people, nor in business and manufacturing technologies, or in the McDonalds phylosophy.

 

In any case, in an historical site what matters are the historical roots to define civilizations.

 

Finally, I see you have made a long effort to prove Latin America is not related to the West. Perhaps you are right it have not much in common with "what YOU call the West". That doesn't matter. However, Latin America is part of the Western Civilization, which is not equal to the very narrow minded concept Americans calls "The West"

 

According to experts, like Toynbee, there are few civilizations compiting in this world: Western, Islamic, Indian (India), Chinese and African folk cultures. The Western Civilization can be divided in regions, indeed, that correspond to:

 

Ortodox/Slavic/Russian-centered culture

Nordic and Central European culture

Iberian, Ibero-American and Latin European culture

 

Besides, with its 600 million people, and growing, and with 50 of them in the U.S. already, Latin America won't be ignored for much longer, just putting them in the same garbage can labeled "third-world". In fact, if you divide the Western Civilization among Europe, the U.S. and Latin America you realize, in a shock, that Latin America, with half the population of China, has almost the same population than Europe (Russia included), and almost twice the U.S. population. Besides, it has a territory close to the 20% of the emerging lands worldwide. So, the relative importance of the region can only grow. Latin America is today the largest chunck of the West

 

Finally, with the growing population of Hispanics in the U.S., I hope the locals of that country finally realize they are wrong with theirs Toby's club attitude with the term "The West"

 

Call it Anglo-Saxon civilization then... and try then to prove that thing is really a civilization. Your "West" don't have anything to do with the definition of Western Civilization.

 

Huntington is guilty of spreading ignorance. Something unacceptable for an schollar.

 

Yes, that's very true. The fact ignored by Americans is that the middle or upper class Latinos usually DON'T emigrate to the United States. There is no reason to do so, because most of what can be done in the U.S. it also can be done back home. So, why to go?

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, what you perceive as something called "Latin America" is not a uniform culture whatsoever. If you wish I could tell you tons about Chilean culture and the Native heritage of our country, and our particular history, but if you ask a Cuban, he will have a complete different story to tell you.  Talk to a person to any single country of Latin America and ALL the stories will be quite different between them. So, what's common between these countries more than the common Iberian heritage? And part of that Iberian heritage is Western Civilization, carried to these lands by our European ancestors.

 

And don't confusse Latin American cultures, because they aren't similar at all. For instance, although I appreciate very much Mexican culture, and its people, one of the things I hated the most it was to be confussed with a Mexican! I don't use sombrero!

 

Even more, do you know Mexicans love colorfull cofins? They love colorful displays and loud music? All, these things look quite strange to a Chilean, where both Europeans and Natives usually preffer dark colors! How you can compare those rythmic rituals and sacrifices of chickens in the Caribbean with those sad ceremonies of both natives and catholics in the Andes? How can you compare Salsa (product of people that laugh with anything, like any Caribbean) with depressing Tango (product of depressed people, like natives, Argentineans and Chileans)?

 

However, Latin America suffered three centuries of Spanish founding influence, once century of French and British influence and now a Century of American. Don't think those have been in vain.

 

Just don't make the mistake of thinking Latinos are Mexican charros riding llamas, as I saw years ago in Canada... what a brutality, a native of the Andes would never ride a llama, because those delicate animals can't stand much weight at all. And less, call that cartoon a "civilization"

 

Pinguin If you wish I could tell you tons about Chilean culture and the Native heritage of our country, and our particular history, but if you ask a Cuban, he will have a complete different story to tell you.

 

I like reading your posts about South America and have always been interested in the region, keep up the good work. I didn't mean any offense to you. In Turkish they have a proverb, "In life one person understood me and he understood me wrong" 

 

I'm not talking about the cultural integration of immigrants, but initial interaction between people belonging to different culture. Integration of immigrants to the mainstram culture is another subject. And I'm not talking of business. I'm talking about general behavoir, culture and mentality. It's simply much easier for Russians, West Europeans, Latin Americans and Middle-Easterners to understand each other than understand Koreans, Japanese and Chinese and vise-versa.

 

However, when it comes to the complete integration to another culture, another factors come to play. Yes, I agree that for the second generation of the Far Eastern immigrants it would be a bit easier to integrate in the mainstream Western culture than for the middle easterners. This is because of the Islamic norms do have stronger impact compare to vague "religious" belief of the Confucian cultural realm.

 

However, in terms of first level interactions between people belonging to the Western culture, Islamic culture and Confucian culture, the behavoir of the peope belonging to the latter would be much less undestandable for the formers.

 

Yes. There is. They ways of doing business "properly" are very different in Japan and China compare to Europe. Bribery in my opinion is more like and economically generated phenomenon.

 

Absolutelly.

 

People should consider, for example, that Freemasonry has had a lot more influence in the political movements of Latin America that ancient civilizations. Freemasonry of the Scotish rite was crucial on the Independence movements in the region, and with them it came the ideals of liberalism, social justice, and secularism, which have strong roots in the region. Freemasonry was particularly important during the Independence movements, when most

political figures of Latin America were part of masonic lodges.

 

In Brazil, Comte´s possitivism was very important in the formation of that state, which is reflected in the motto of theirs shield: "Orden and progress".

 

All these ideals don't came from ancient americas and not even from Iberian culture, but directly from Britain and France, the intellectual powers of the Western civilization of the time.

 

Mexico has a pure native president, in the 19th century, Benito Juarez. He could be native but his thinking was liberal and he followed the ideals of equality and freedom that comes from Western Civilization and not from the Aztec empire!

 

Even more, all the identification of modern mexicans with the Aztec is something artificial that was promoted for the first time by idealist people like Vanconcelos, the same that invented the myth of the "Cosmic Race". People so much inside Western Culture that wanted to change the identity of theirs countries artificially,

 

 

 

That's a good point. Latin America is no threat to the U.S. at all, because people don't hate that country at all. If anything, many Latin Americans hate fascism when got the power in that country. In other words, Latin Americans preffer Democrat governments in the U.S.

 

On the other hand, Latin America don't trust the U.S. at all. The reason is simple to understand. Since the 1840s, the United States has invaded of intevine in Latin American internal affairs during 100 times!!

However, Latin America don't hate the U.S. to the point of machining terrorist attacks or machining to destroy it economically, like happens so often in the muslim world or in East Asia. On the contrary, what the region wants is to have trade deals with the U.S. and solve the problems using the international laws. Of course people like Bush, Nixon, Teddy Rossvelt or Kissinger are not much appreaciated here, and are just considered bandits, but others like Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln or Clinton had reached the status of superstars quite often.

 

I guess, the U.S. don't need to invent enemies where there is no intention to harm.

 

 

 

However, there are some pretty poor Chinese that work in hard condition in the kitchen of chinese restaurants or in semi-legal textile plants there are in the popular commercial zone. Even more, several crimes have happede there among chinese!

 

Other are so poor that sale chinese rolls at the entrance of the subway! I don't see them as a model minority but just as a group of immigrants more with rich and poor peoples among them.

 

In the case of Latinos in tHE U.S., only the poor call the attention. Rich and middle class Latinos going there to study and business, who speak english fluently, addapt so well to that culture they aren't even noticed.

 

When Huntington is the subject you tut-tut like a nanny, yet in another thread you write about Igor Panarin, a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry

When Panarin was in the KGB, did his perspicacity tell him that the USSR was headed for extinction in it's then "present form?"   The biggest bonehead prediction since Y2K.

Hypocrite.

 

Panarin isn't dead.  Only his brain.

 

 

 

What I think you fail to understand is the following: the poor Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. are the most visible face of Hispanics there only. There are much more Hispanics in that nation than those you can identify in the streets. In fact 15% of the U.S. population is Hispanic already, and perhaps the number is even higher. That makes that group the first largest minority in that country.

 

The Hispanic in the U.S. is the youngest minority in that country, and that the reason why the haven't flex the political muscle as yet, but that is comming. In the last election, large number of young Hispanics registered to vote, and voted in mass mainly for Obama. That was a revenge for the exclusion politics of Mr. Bush and his followers.

 

In second place, Hispanics are well organized in the U.S. and have its own communication networks as extensive as English speaking media.

 

In third, the U.S., and places like Miami and Atlanta, compite to get Hispanic business locally. The U.S. is the central focus of the Iberoamerican business and entertainment world, which spread across the Americas to Iberia in Europe, with 600 million peoples connected to it.

 

Forth, you should understand that Hispanics do speak English. Of course, the recent immigrant hardly will do, but the younger generations are massively English-Speaker, although they are usually Spanish speakers as well.

 

Originally posted by Bulldog ... What is wrong in my opinion, is that these workers are needed on the one hand but at the same time the media and so-called intellects bash them and make them into scape-goats.

 

What's a wrong strategy, I am sure, is that the general American don't see Spanish-speaking TV, which gaves a lot more information about the topic than the English media. All the organization of Hispanics go in Spanish, of course. Americans could have a taste of that during the recent Hispanic protests; an that is just the beginning.

 

Americans should realize itoo late to close the door now, and that they better try to live together with the Americans of Hispanic ancestry. A minority that won't accept to be pushed down as it historically happened with others. That's the only difference.

 

 

 

Hispanics want power and they will get it,

 

 

 

"The West"="Western Civilisation"

 

That's false. It is not.

 

Western civilization is the one that developed in Western Eurasia and the Mediterranean, with roots in Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt, and with some ancestral links to places far away as India.

Western civlisation become an European civilisation during the Middle Ages only, when the Arabs stread the Muslim society, and unified the East under a new religion. At that time Muslims unified theirs own "Western" or Roman heritage with the oriental becoming a parallel brother civilisation (a civilisation that is as fellow with western as cats and dogs, but that have a common root).

It was only after the Anglosaxon culture took power and dominated the world, and particularly after WWII and the Cold War that the term "The West" developed to indicate Western Europe and the U.S. only.

 

However, as I say earlier, Western Europe+former Anglosaxon white colonies are just a fraction of the Western Civilisation today. Latin America, with its large territories (20% of the planet) and its large population (600 million people), is an important fraction of Western Civilisation, and the reserve for the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The term "Latino" is a short of Latin American. Which means "people born in Latin America".

Latin America was a region colonized by the Iberians superpowers of its time: Spain and Portugal. The region was settled by millions of Europeans that mixed with the natives.

 

The genetics of Latin America is highly European in the male contribution but highly Amerindian in the female side. There are also an important fraction of African and Asian genetics in the Latin American populations. The culture is mainly European, transmitted through European languages derivated from Latin (Spanish, Portuguese), a milenary art, music and literature, and also the Catholic religion of the Iberian variety.

 

What Latin America also have is an heritage of the Ancient civilisations of the regions, like Mayans, Aztecs, Tiahuanacos, Incas and also of the tribal groups. Latin Americans are proud of theirs local indigenous cultures, and they don't hide them. However, 95% of the culture is Western, and the authentic Indigenous societies are minoritary.

 

The only difference between Western Europe, North America and Latin America is that the later is poor in comparison. That's changing though. I expect in the long term the economical difference won't be as sharper as today. In fact, 50 years ago the differences between them in economics were atonishing, but that's no longer true.

 

 

 

 

 

You think it's all economics ?

 

I haven't read any American materials ever suggested second-world European countries like Greece & Portugal are less Western culturally or shouldn't group in the European category.Greeks and Portuguess aren't of Anglo-Saxon/Nordic stock.

 

In America,I think the word Latino has a much broader meaning.

 

 

 

It's not ALL about economics, but economics does play an important factor.

For example, Spain and southern Italy were hardly considered as "western" during the first half of the 20th century. Back then, the Northern European view of the Iberian peninsula was probably very similar to their view on Latin America.

The French used to say: "Africa begins south of the Pyreneese".

In many ways, Spaniards and southern Italians back then did live a lifestyle and share a system of belief more similar to Mexicans and Colombians than with French, British, or German. In the last 30 years things are changed a lot in these countries.

 

Nowadays, most of European countries are more or less economically developed; so they are colloquially all included as part of the "West". Nevertheless, there are still some exceptions such as Albania. Even Rumania and Bulgaria, who are part of the EU now, are generally not considered to be very "western" by popular standards for their economic backwardness.

 

"West" is a cultural-political-economic definition and the lines are blurred. I think that for most people it means fullfilling 4 basic requirements:

- deriving from a Christian-European cultural heritage (or at least the mainstream)

- a democratic government and a free economy

- a reasonable level of economic development.

- a relatively low rate of corruption

 

Countries that fill all 4 requirements are generally considered as the most "western" (Germany, USA, France, UK, Belgium, Canada).

Italy might fullfill the first 3 of the 4; Mexico and Brasil only fill the first 2; and Albania fullfills none.

 

 

 

 

Nope. I think is ignorance.

 

Originally posted by pebbles   I haven't read any American materials ever suggested second-world European countries like Greece & Portugal are less Western culturally or shouldn't group in the European category.Greeks and Portuguess aren't of Anglo-Saxon/Nordic stock.

 

You shouldn't believe everything you read.

I have also read some oppinions that said Anglosaxons and Nordics aren't Westerners but tribal people that were Westernized by the Romans.

 

-------------

 

I am not ignoring anything. Western Civilization has been racist from the beginning.}

Remember how Jews and Gypsies have been treated in Europe during centuries. Or how Blacks were treated in the British colonies in the Americas, and in the United States, for so long.

 

I am talking to you of the oppinion of the educated peoples of Latin America. Not about the biggots of cantina, that exists everywhere.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl ... And also I think there is a difference between Mexico and the rest of Latin America; I think Mexico considers itself to be more indigenous than most other Latin American countries. Popular history in Mexico always identifies the Aztecs with Mexico and vilyfies that Spanish, indigenism is a kind of official ideology in Mexico (while at the same time they keep ignoring the real indigenous peoples). I think in this Mexico differs from most other Latin American countries though.

 

That was artificially produced in Mexico under the Cosmic Race doctrine introduced by Vasconcelos. Mexico has an important Iberian genetic and cultural component that not educated Mexican can deny.

 

That doesn't mean Mexico is a perfect example of a Western country. Mexico is still poor and has too many problems. But putting it appart because its particularities is just negating the obvious.

 

Absolutely.

 

Originally posted by calvo Nowadays, most of European countries are more or less economically developed; so they are colloquially all included as part of the "West". Nevertheless, there are still some exceptions such as Albania. Even Rumania and Bulgaria, who are part of the EU now, are generally not considered to be very "western" by popular standards for their economic backwardness.

 

So when Europe get ruined after the development of East Asia (if ever happens) then Europe will stop to be the West?

 

Economic situations don't make civilizations. I think you are confusing terms.

 

Originally posted by calvo "West" is a cultural-political-economic definition and the lines are blurred. I think that for most people it means fullfilling 4 basic requirements: - deriving from a Christian-European cultural heritage (or at least the mainstream) - a democratic government and a free economy - a reasonable level of economic development. - a relatively low rate of corruption

 

Defined as such, it is completely wrong.

 

(1) Christian-European: A large part of the history of the Western Civilization wasn't Christian European!!

 

For instance, the Roman Empire developed in all the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, covering sectors of Europe, Asia and Africa. Even more, a large part of Europe wasn't Roman! Besides, during Crete, Greece, Alexandrian and Roman times, the Western Civilisation wans't even Christian. And Christian religion itself comes from the Middle East and not Europe!

 

(2) Democracy. The West only started to become democratic at the end of the 18th century! And during most of the 20th century there were stilll dictatorships all over Europe!

 

(3) Development. Do you mean the Middle Ages weren't westerner? Does that mean people suddenly is excluded from "The West" when they get poor? If the U.S. or Europe suffer an economical colapse, Soviet Union style, they will stop to be Westerners?

 

This argument is ridiculous.

 

(4) Corruption. How to measure it? Sometimes the worst corrupt are those who nobody detects.

 

 

Originally posted by calvo Countries that fill all 4 requirements are generally considered as the most "western" (Germany, USA, France, UK, Belgium, Canada). Italy might fullfill the first 3 of the 4; Mexico and Brasil only fill the first 2; and Albania fullfills none.

 

Those scores, with the criterias above, are ridicullous. Albania belongs to the Western Civilization. France as well, no matter a large part of its population was born in Africa.

 

 

"West" is a cultural-political-economic definition and the lines are blurred. I think that for most people it means fullfilling 4 basic requirements:

 

- deriving from a Christian-European cultural heritage (or at least the mainstream)

- a democratic government and a free economy

- a reasonable level of economic development.

- a relatively low rate of corruption

 

Italy might fullfill the first 3 of the 4

 

 

 

 

 

What it boils down to is a technicality,it's a matter for those who measure it.

 

Ireland was an economic backwater for decades in post WW 2,but that country was never denied membership of " the West ".How are Italy & Greece more qualify than comparable corrupted Argentina of Latin America.

 

By the way,US views Europe & Latin America through a different spectrum.

 

I am more cynical,still believe there is underlying " bias " exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course that "bias" exists.

 

It is racism.

 

Even Southern Europe has been considerated "less westerner" because people there is less blond. As if Germanics were the founders of the Western Civilisation, anyways

 

Europe and North America pushed away Latin America simply because the European colones mixed there with Amerindians, Africans and Asians. That, in the view of some people of Europe and the U.S., convert us in alliens.

 

What is ridiculous, though, is that today, after decades of immigration, many parts of the U.S., Canada, Australia and Europe looks less "westerner" (or white) than Latin America.

 

That makes us, Latinos, to laugh at the hypocresy of the Anglosaxon and Western European worlds.

 

 

I'm not talking about the academic definition of the "West" and the classification of ancient civilizations, but rather the modern "coloquial" definition of the word in international politics. The way how it's understood by MOST people in everyday conversation.

 

Whether you like it or not, the word "West" does have an elitist tone in it; that implies economic and social development and a democratic political system.

Speak to any average guy on the street and mention the word "western country", the first thing that'd come to mind is democracy, prosperity, and an open society.

Generally speaking, people do not tend to classify a nation with a high level of illiteracy, nor a society that still practices tribal warfare and honour killings as "western", despite its cultural heritage.

And I'm afraid that once a country is poor, it becomes less "western" by international standards. A typical example is Argentina before and after the economic collapse. You might consider it unfair, but it's the way the world is.

 

and I frankly believe that "Western civilization" only existed from the 18th and 19th centuries onwards, the age of European domination. Western civilization might have taken inspirations from the Greeks, Romans, and Semites; but the Greeks and Romans certainly did not consider themselves as "westerners".

In the late Roman Empire, the words "Orient" and "Occident" had completely different meanings; the former refering to the Greek-speaking Christian world, while the latter referred to the Latin-speaking pagan world.

Nor could Medieval Europe be considered as "western civilization". Christian yes, but "Western" not yet.

In many ways, modern "Western civilization" is more similar to medieval Islamic culture than to Christian Europe.

 

 

   

 

I am not concern with the modern definitions of the "West" that some Europeans may have based on theirs ignorance.

 

The Western Civilisation has a very simple definition:

 

Is a civilisation rooted in Greek-Roman ancient civilisation and in Jewish-Christian religion and ethics. Besides, Westerners speak Indo-European languages (with exceptions, of course).

 

The democratic system is not part of the West, or was not up to recent times. So, it can't define a region.

 

Perhaps you are speaking about a different thing. Call it then, "European" civilisation or whatever, but you are not talking about "Western civilisation".

 

With respect to Muslims, they are a sister culture of Western Civilisation. Even more, India also shares some important roots with the West.

 

Europeans aren't the definition of the "Western Civilisation" but only of Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pebbles,

 

I don't know where you're from nor what books you've been reading, but from many of your post I gather that you have a rather 19th-century "racialist" view of the world.

You seem to believe that what divides mankind the most is "race", or the U.S. definition of the world (which is different in Europe, Latin America, and the Arab world); and that the concept that:

Western = White = Nordic

and that Kazakhs have to be more related to Chinese than to Turks just because they're Mongoloid.

 

We are in the 21st century now, and most of this 19th century racialism is obsolete in most of the world; not only socially, but also scientifically.

Looking further back in history, few societies prior to the 19th century had derived their consciousness primarily from their skull shape and colour of skin. Most of this racialism of dividing makind into strict categories of white-yellow-black was a colonial political legacy with very shallow roots.

 

However, if this is what you want to believe in, I try not to convince you more.

 

 

 

 

It's America's political establishment's racialist view not mine.US public media is racially conscious by referring Asians & Hispanics as " 3rd world " Americans  

 

 

He detected the cynical definition of "The West" modern Europeans use.