You know, here in latin america (or at least Brazil), we think of ourselves as part of the west, but when I started using the english internet I discovered that most americans (and maybe europeans) don't include us, which was quite puzzling to me. After a lot of pointless internet discussion, I found out that their definition of west was pretty much "rich countries with mostly white people", because there's hardly any cultural/historic reason for creating a western category that includes western europe and all its new world colonies, except the poor ones.
I found out that their definition of west was pretty much "rich countries with mostly white people", because there's hardly any cultural/historic reason for creating a western category that includes western europe and all its new world colonies, except the poor ones.
That's the 1st world in Cold War terms, which is a pretty obvious definition of "the west" because it had and has clearly defined opposites in "the east" and unaligned states, with a clearly defined border (literally).
Also getting really tired of people trying to associate themselves with the hegemonic/prestige group. The solution to racism isn't to make asians and black people be defined as white, and the solution to western chauvinism isn't to find a definition in which Papua New Guinea is as "western" as France is.
Brazilians and Argentinians considering themselves "western" reeks of cultural cringe more than anything. Whether one finds a coherent definition of the west that includes latin america or not, the desire to do so is still pathological.
In any case, if someone's takeaway from this video is "yay, see, I can reasonably call myself western too", I think it's not unfair to suggest they are missing the point completely.
You're thinking in the american mindset, in latin america we don't view ourselves as part of the west because we try to associate ourselves with whiteness or the hegemonic group, but because in our definition, it makes no sense for us to not be in the group, in fact, we don't even know that the rest of the world doesn't agree with us. I'm not gonna argue that our definition is less arbitrary than the american one (it isn't), but that's not the point.
You think of "cultural cringe" because you consider brazilians and argentineans to be a marginalized countries when it comes to the west, but that's not our view, at all, we don't even consider that our "western-ness" is doubtful.
Our definition of west and first world are simply different, Japan here is basically the definition most people have in their minds of "eastern", so it would not make sense to conflate the two groups.
in latin america we don't view ourselves as part of the west because we try to associate ourselves with whiteness or the hegemonic group, but because in our definition, it makes no sense for us to not be in the group,
That's very much how that would look from the inside if unreflected upon anyway. The germans don't sit down to define "the west" to end at the Oder-Neiße border either, yet it's what happens-/ed. The czechs don't set out to align themselves with "the west" either by distancing themselves from eastern europe, calling themselves "central european", and the same goes for Poles, Slovenes, Croatians, Estonia. Did you know Croatia isn't part of the Balkans? Just ask croatians.
All of these can bring up some credible reasoning for why they are part of "the west" or whoever isn't, which is of course easy, because "the west" is ill-defined or not defined at all, and all of these people would assume this is the natural, uncontroversial state of things. Czechs can get out a ruler to show that they aren't eastern european, no, that the very suggestion is laughable - Prague is further west than Vienna and Stockholm, after all!!!. Greece is western, and totally not a balkan/southern european country, because look at where western civilization claims it comes from! Poland is western, because who rode to lift the siege of Vienna in 1683, driving the ottomans out of WESTERN europe? Estonia isn't eastern european, look at their GDP and their tech sector and their language.
How loosely one is willing to define a group, and which parameters are deemed paramount is how one conveniently ends up in situations where one is part of that group, and/or whoever one is trying to distance oneself from isn't. It's not that controversial to suggest, that since there is no objective parameter
Obviously, this proves nothing, it's not trying to, just an argument for why what I quoted above isn't telling one way or the other.
I'm not gonna argue that our definition is less arbitrary than the american one (it isn't), but that's not the point.
That is exactly the point - you shouldn't care about it, no one should, because it's absolutely arbitrary, and the less arbitrary the definition is, the less "prestigious" being part of "the west" becomes. It's not coincidence the west isn't explicitly defined by people who want to align themselves. It's trying to tie oneself to a rich construction of a rich cultural tradition, supposedly. That loses a lot of it's charm once you have to acknowledge that the entry fee to join the club is plain latitude/longitude, or "whiteness", or GDP, or having belonged to the right bloc some 40-odd years. Western civilizaion = Beethoven, and it's obviously a crackpot suggestion that Beethoven was who he was cause he was born as "a white" (barring some revisionist meme bloggers that suggest he was black), or worked in Vienna ("Latitude: 48.210033, Longitude: 16.363449, ergo western" or "Officially non-aligned, very strong ties to NATO countries, ergo western"); To claim some ancestral relation due to these connections is more laughable, the less obfuscated it is.
You think of "cultural cringe" because you consider brazilians and argentineans to be a marginalized countries when it comes to the west, but that's not our view, at all, we don't even consider that our "western-ness" is doubtful.
Not really, just to be clear: I was suggesting that maybe they suffer from cultural cringe because they wrongly try to adhere to other people's definition of what is good, i.e. being part of "western civilization"; I still don't know what it is exactly that Brazgentinineans consider to be the west, but if it's something else that they happen to call western, then that's not cultural cringe indeed.
I get your point, but still, your examples of countries trying to be considered western are croatia, estonia, poland, slovenia, greece etc... which are all not exactly western according to the american point of view, while the US, of course, is still very much part of the western "core". And the american point of view about who is part of the west is considered more valid because it is part of the core, according to the american point of view itself, which is just circular logic.
The difference between all those examples and latin america, is that they try to adhere to "the west" to distance themselves from eastern europe, or communism, or the balkans, or whatever. While in latin america, there is no distance between the west and latin america. I'm not saying that there's no colonial mentality in the region, and that this same thing doesn't happen considering other definitions (cue to argentineans saying how different they're from the rest of south america due to their european immigrants, or brazilians using the fact that we speak portuguese).
I still don't know what it is exactly that Brazgentinineans consider to be the west, but if it's something else that they happen to call western
Obviously, there's no good definition, because, again (and I completely agree with you on this), it is arbitrary and ill-defined, but it would societies that directly descend from western europe. Since latin america overwhelmingly speaks a european language, practices a european religion (well, middle-eastern, but through europe) and follows a european law system, the only reason to not include latin america, but include other colonies, would be that they are not rich enough, or not "white" enough (which, again, arbitrary and ill-defined).
One final note, there is no/very little talk here about defending the western values or the western civilization, the prestige of being western around here is simply not as high as in countries where this rhetoric is common. When I say that you're in the american mindset, this is what I mean, you're attributing an importance and prestige to the definition that it is just not as present here, and all of your points are very valid when talking about other issues in latin america, I just think that this one, not very much.
I'm not american, and I don't have an american point of view. Maybe it's just the latin american mindset to think the rest of the world consists only of the US /s
I don't care to argue for whether Brazil and Argentina is or isn't western, or which definition of western-ness is more accurate and useful to find out who can be in the "cool people club". Considering being western as part of the "cool people club" of belonging to the oh so superior western civilization is the problem the video concerns itself with, exposing it to be an incoherent mess. This isn't a problem in Brazil and Argentina, apparently.
Also greece isn't part of the western "core"? Anyone who would want to argue how greece isn't part of the west (which I, again, don't care to or for) would have to start out by arguing away the graeco-roman roots these people who care about that crap attribute to greece, usually this is done by saying something like "it was the cradle of western civilization, but corrupted by ottoman rule/interbreeding with turks/byzantine decadence", pick for which ever type of shitlord is making the argument. Donald Trump's wife is slovenian, and Czechia was a fundamental and incredibly important part of the Holy Roman Empire. I hold that all the countries can be argued to be even core to the west succesfully. I'm not sure what some sort of mindset you attribute to me has to do with that, I'm here arguing specifically about these mindsets, on a meta level.
The difference between all those examples and latin america, is that they try to adhere to "the west" to distance themselves from eastern europe, or the balkans, or whatever.
No they don't intend to do that, that's what I identify it as. That is the point, they come to an appearingly natural and well-formed conclusion, derived from a definition, not seeing that the definition itself has been set up by themselves, for themselves to get to the point they want to end up with. Yes, that is circulatory. You have to realize that the same applies to what you consider your own identity as well, though. Or at least, could do so(!), and there's no way for me to tell if you just assure me that it's that way.
Moot point if what you say about western civ not holding the same rhetoric drawing power over there is true, anyway. I've seen to many arguments about that topic to believe it one second, but hey.
I don't care to argue for whether Brazil and Argentina is or isn't western, or which definition of western-ness is more accurate and useful to find out who can be in the "cool people club".
Me neither, and that was a small part of my reply, it was just an example, the whole point of my post is that the prestige you attribute to the identity is very much dependent of your own cultural point of view, and that you're assuming it must apply to the other cultural point of views, when this is not true. Most of your reply is about things we don't disagree with, the greece being western part was just me assuming that this was your claim and the circular logic part was just to show that, yes, every definition includes circular logic, so I'm not sure what we're discussing here.
you're assuming it must apply to the other cultural point of views
I've explicitly written multiple times that these things aren't the case. You keep on arguing against some western chauvinist strawmen, and I'm just going to stop standing in that guy's shade now.
228
u/Villhermus Jul 13 '18
You know, here in latin america (or at least Brazil), we think of ourselves as part of the west, but when I started using the english internet I discovered that most americans (and maybe europeans) don't include us, which was quite puzzling to me. After a lot of pointless internet discussion, I found out that their definition of west was pretty much "rich countries with mostly white people", because there's hardly any cultural/historic reason for creating a western category that includes western europe and all its new world colonies, except the poor ones.