QuoteReplyTopic: Is Latin America Western? Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 19:40
Originally posted by Bulldog
Only if you have an inferiority complex. Otherwise, why is it an "insult" to not be "Western"
Just be blunt to point out the underlying prejudices in my post.Oh,a few White forumites here rejected any suggestion of Whites are seemingly more incline to racist view ( read page#3 ) in thoughts and behaviours.
Well,inferiority complex applies to Japanese ( Enter Europe Leave Asia concept ) and Koreans ( claim its language " artificially " links to Altai linguistic group,so they're part of Western race ) as they have been trying hard to connect to the West in any imaginable ways possible.I know it would bother many Japanese and sinophobic Japanophile foreigners greatly if Japan is not consider a part of world-dominated West .
For those Latin-Americans of European descent,they do have a reason to gripe because others have no rights to deny their heritage.
The insult is the attitude of anglosaxons that believe they are the judges in deciding who is and who it isn't Western.
They are the leaders of the Western World, the powerfull get to dictate thats just the way of the world.
Today when we think of "Western" we really mean Anglosaxon countries, Australlia, New Zealand, England, Canada, America. All English speaking, Anglosaxon elite and similar economic systems etc etc
[quote
With respect to Evo Morales, ask him why he Spanish, why he
carries a Spanish last name like "Morales" and not a very common Aymara
last name as "Mamani", why he respect the Catholic church and why the
King of Spain was a honour guest in the ceremony where he took power. [/quote]
Evo Morales has took part in many indegenous Mayan cerenomies, look at his visit to Guatemala for example, supports indegenous rights movements and has done alot to elevate the status of his people and even calls for a utopian mayan union of states.
Edited by Bulldog - 18-Mar-2009 at 20:05
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
I'm not trying to nitpick with you here Bulldog, but i would like too point out some facts .
Originally posted by Bulldog
U.S.A has no regions with strong Amerindian influences or major populations.
You might find this surprising but there are a lot of regions with a very strong indigenous influence. Like the Navajo & Apache in the Southwestern states. Blackfeet around Colorado and New Mexico border. Comanche & Cherokee in Oklahoma and Texas. These tribes still exist and if the census is correct, growing. Also, a lot of states have been heavily influenced by the history of the indigenous populations. Quite a few state names are derived from Indian words, as well for their state motto; Thousands of cities across the US whose names have been influenced by Native culture as well, Like Buffalo for example. Not too mention the countless rivers throughout the US that still have the Native names applied too them to this day. You can even find their influence in the US military, for example let's take the helicopters for instance: The Chinook transport, The Apache longbow, The Kiowa ground support helicopter (a.k.a - Little bird). I mean the list is never ending in that aspect either. This also does not apply solely to the US either. Canada had been effected nearly in the same way!
Mainstream America is culturally European and in its foundation European, anybody looking at the issue objectively can see this.
Too an extent, the US is culturally European, Colonial history you see... but not exclusively only European. Cultures from all around the world have heavily influenced the US, much more so than people realize! Europe is a given but there is also, Asia, Africa, Middle Eastern, Latin America, Oceania it does not matter where it comes from, just as long as the originator is clever enough to come up with a product that everyone will like and is flexible enough too change and morph with the times.
You might find this surprising but there are a lot of regions with
a very strong indigenous influence. Like the Navajo & Apache in the
Southwestern states.
Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
Well, Western means alot of different things to alot of different people.
In a historical sense, the "Western tradition" goes back to ancient Greece and Rome, and in this sense, Latin America is certainly Western.
In common usage, the term is sometimes meant to refer to the Celto-Scando-Germanic cultures, i.e. Austria, Germany, France, the Low Countries, the Scandinavian countries, and the UK + Ireland. Spain, of course, was once a major center of Celtic culture but this part of Spain's heritage was so diluted by Latin and Islamic influences that it falls outside of the above group.
No one should be offended by the second use of the term, as long as they can differentiate the two intended meanings. This cultural grouping doesn't have a convenient name like "Latin America" or "the Meditteranean cultures", so "Western" is used as a (somewhat misleading) substitute. "Northwestern" wouldn't sound right, neither would "Gallo-Scando-Germanic".
In the second meaning, I actually don't feel the USA is really Western. Parts of Canada make a pretty good case for it, especially places like Newfoundland, Quebec, and parts of Nova Scotia. But overall, the USA, Canada, and Latin America are all cultures of the Americas, first and foremost, and have more in common with each other than they do with their European parents. They are all settler states, they all have a legacy of colonialism, they all contain a very profound mix of ethnic influences and always have, and they all share unique cultural motifs (for instance, the cowboy) that are not part of European - or even native - culture.
Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.
I see, good point. The only state i understand in having more indigenous than all the others would have to be Oklahoma.
The insult is the attitude of anglosaxons that believe they are the judges in deciding who is and who it isn't Western.
They are the leaders of the Western World, the powerfull get to dictate thats just the way of the world.
.
You are wrong. Today the leader of the Western World is an African.
Originally posted by Bulldog
Today when we think of "Western" we really mean Anglosaxon countries, Australlia, New Zealand, England, Canada, America. All English speaking, Anglosaxon elite and similar economic systems etc etc
.
Well, then Germany, Poland, Italy, France, Romania, Spain, Scandinavia, aren't part of the Western world either... While Kiwi-land is in the hard core of the West
Originally posted by Bulldog
Evo Morales has took part in many indegenous Mayan cerenomies, look at his visit to Guatemala for example, supports indegenous rights movements and has done alot to elevate the status of his people and even calls for a utopian mayan union of states.
... Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.
Have you ever been to the Americas? I bet you imagine Latin America is like an immigrant neighbourhood in London.
Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.
I see, good point. The only state i understand in having more indigenous than all the others would have to be Oklahoma.
But there are states with African majorities. I bet New Orleans after Katrina was more Western than Guatemala
... Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.
Have you ever been to the Americas? I bet you imagine Latin America is like an immigrant neighbourhood in London.
I took it that he meant a mixture of European and Indigenous population? If that is what he meant, then he has a point.
... Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.
Pure Amerindian populations aren't majoritary in any country of Latin America, except in Bolivia and Guatemala. And even there, the number of mixed European descendents is very large, and the mainstream culture is Iberian.
... I took it that he meant a mixture of European and Indigenous population? If that is what he meant, then he has a point.
If he meant mixed people should be excluded from the West, then British people, who are mixed descendents of Romans and Barbarians, should be excluded from the West, too.
Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.
I see, good point. The only state i understand in having more indigenous than all the others would have to be Oklahoma.
But there are states with African majorities. I bet New Orleans after Katrina was more Western than Guatemala
Maybe i am confusing you a little here. Indigenous can also mean to me: Amerindian or Native American.
Pinguin You are wrong. Today the leader of the Western World is an African.
African-American, there is a difference, remember the African-Americans came to the Americas around the same time the Europeans did, they are both relatively recent to the continent. While Europeans bought their culture and language with them from Europe, the Africans didn't and had to adopt the rulers language and ways.
However, in my opinion, there is a difference when the leader of a country is an Amerindian because of their connection to the history, culture and civillisations of the land from the pre-European period. Obama has no real connection to Africa, neither linguistically or culturally, he's an American. However, Morales speaks Aymara and Quecha, grew up in this culture and its native to the land.
Pinguin Well, then Germany, Poland, Italy, France, Romania, Spain, Scandinavia, aren't part of the Western world either... While Kiwi-land is in the hard core of the West
I wrote, the Anglosaxon world, or the English speaking world is thought of the West today.
The countries you listed are part of the EU, a Western club.
Pinguin So? That excludes them from the West?
In my opinion they arn't Western, there are no parrelels, to me Latin America is unique, it doesn't have to be accepted as Western to be "recognised" or "civillised".
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
... I took it that he meant a mixture of European and Indigenous population? If that is what he meant, then he has a point.
If he meant mixed people should be excluded from the West, then British people, who are mixed descendents of Romans and Barbarians, should be excluded from the West, too.
I don't know? He'll have to answer that for you. What i was responding too was that there was much more mixing between European & Amerindians in Latin America than there was up North.
African-American, there is a difference, remember the African-Americans came to the Americas around the same time the Europeans did, they are both relatively recent to the continent. While Europeans bought their culture and language with them from Europe, the Africans didn't and had to adopt the rulers language and ways.
So, do you believe Europeans didn't bring theirs culture, language, music and religion to Latin America? So you believe those Europeans didn't impose theirs culture upon Indians? Unbelievable, how inconsistent are your arguments.
Originally posted by Bulldog
However, in my opinion, there is a difference when the leader of a country is an Amerindian because of their connection to the history, culture and civillisations of the land from the pre-European period. Obama has no real connection to Africa, neither linguistically or culturally, he's an American. However, Morales speaks Aymara and Quecha, grew up in this culture and its native to the land.
Morales also speaks Spanish . What do you believe there where the belief of Benito Juarez. Do you believe he believe the blood of human sacrifices fertilized the ground? Nope. He was a liberal
Originally posted by Bulldog
Pinguin Well, then Germany, Poland, Italy, France, Romania, Spain, Scandinavia, aren't part of the Western world either... While Kiwi-land is in the hard core of the West
I wrote, the Anglosaxon world, or the English speaking world is thought of the West today.
The countries you listed are part of the EU, a Western club.
[/quote]
So, you are the gatekeeper. And, of course, London must be the hub of the West
Originally posted by Bulldog
In my opinion they arn't Western, there are no parrelels, to me Latin America is unique, it doesn't have to be accepted as Western to be "recognised" or "civillised".
We know it is unique, and we love it that way. However, we are entitled to be Westerners by culture and by blood. And we won't renounce to it.
We know it is unique, and we love it that way. However, we are entitled to be Westerners by culture and by blood. And we won't renounce to it.
Well, if it's all the same to you gentlemen, i am going to end my involvement in this thread for the day, by adding: The concept of what makes up the West seems to be in a state of flux today! But as far as i am concerned, and i am going too keep it simple here, Latin Americans are a part of the West as i currently understand it today!
Pure Amerindian populations aren't majoritary in any country of
Latin America, except in Bolivia and Guatemala. And even there, the
number of mixed European descendents is very large, and the
mainstream culture is Iberian.
Also in Peru they are majority. There are also countries in Latin America with less than 10% White European populations.
That's three countries with an Amerindian majority, many countries with mixed Amerindian/European/Black populations and countries with White European minorities. White Europeans are 30-40% of population of Latin America.
There is an obvious difference between Latin America and U.S.A
Pinguin
If he meant mixed people should be excluded from the West, then
British people, who are mixed descendents of Romans and Barbarians,
should be excluded from the West, too.
But they're all from Europe, however, Amerindian is a different world to Europe, its like comparing apples and oranges.
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
Well, Western means alot of different things to alot of different people.
In a historical sense, the "Western tradition" goes back to ancient Greece and Rome, and in this sense, Latin America is certainly Western.
That's the sense I am arguing here. Latin America is a part of Western Civilization.
Originally posted by edgewaters
In common usage, the term is sometimes meant to refer to the Celto-Scando-Germanic cultures, i.e. Austria, Germany, France, the Low Countries, the Scandinavian countries, and the UK + Ireland. Spain, of course, was once a major center of Celtic culture but this part of Spain's heritage was so diluted by Latin and Islamic influences that it falls outside of the above group.
.
That's a wrong usage of the term. In Spanish at least we call it the Nordic/ Germanic cultures, or world, to differentiate of the Latin and Slavic cultures.
Originally posted by edgewaters
No one should be offended by the second use of the term, as long as they can differentiate the two intended meanings. This cultural grouping doesn't have a convenient name like "Latin America" or "the Meditteranean cultures", so "Western" is used as a (somewhat misleading) substitute. "Northwestern" wouldn't sound right, neither would "Gallo-Scando-Germanic".
.
Germanic is the proper term. Just apply it.
Originally posted by edgewaters
In the second meaning
, I actually don't feel the USA is really Western. Parts of Canada make a pretty good case for it, especially places like Newfoundland, Quebec, and parts of Nova Scotia. But overall, the USA, Canada, and Latin America are all cultures of the Americas, first and foremost, and have more in common with each other than they do with their European parents. They are all settler states, they all have a legacy of colonialism, they all contain a very profound mix of ethnic influences and always have, and they all share unique cultural motifs (for instance, the cowboy) that are not part of European - or even native - culture.
Well, American cultures aren't really fully Western. Even the full European settler are mixed among themselves, and have another perspective of the world than the ancient Europe.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum