Buenos Aires- Good Or Bad Move?

[scotttswan]

Considering that we are much closer related to the Roman empire than the Anglo Saxon nations, I am really curious about what the current definition of western country is.

I always took "western" as interchangeable with first world i.e. United States, United Kingdom and their allies.

Nothing to do with depeloped country and developing country which is often mixed up with 1st, 2nd and 3rd world.

 

[Joe]

I always took "western" as interchangeable with first world i.e. United States, United Kingdom and their allies.

That's profoundly racist. Japan has always been in the "First World" but obviously not "Western"

 

[camberiu]

I always took "western" as interchangeable with first world i.e. United States, United Kingdom and their allies.

So I guess Sweden, Switzerland and Finland, all non aligned nations and therefore not part of the first world, are not western countries.

First world: NATO countries.
Second world: Soviet block.
Third world: everyone else.

 

[ElQueso]

Considering that we are much closer related to the Roman empire than the Anglo Saxon nations, I am really curious about what the current definition of western country is.

Anglo-Saxon refers to the mixture in England created by invasions of England by Germany (Edit: I'm talking about regions, not actual nations) during and after the time the western Roman empire was falling off in ability to rule.Spain was a conquered nation of the Roman empire as well. While perhaps "England" wasn't under roman rule as long as Spain, they were still quite heavily influenced by the empire. Germany as well, considering parts of it were conquered by the empire and them the rise of the Holy Roman Empire based on Catholicism which was spread throughout Europe...

When people refer to "western" and lump basically large parts of Europe into the mix, it has to do with first conquests of the Roman empire and then conquests of the Catholic Church, which all lead to a basic fundamental cultural basis which happened only fairly recently (in the last 500 years, as opposed to the last 2000 or so).

Considering that most people consider the founding of the "western" culture to have originated with Greece (which didn't have much, if anything to do with the Roman empire's later conquests apart from the Greek culture that bled into the Roman culture...I think that England is as closely linked to the Roman empire as much as Spain - and therefore pretty much every colony settled in the New World has as much right to be western as any other

Now, if you want to talk about languages - although the Latin languages may be closer related to Latin (and which they are closer to, i.e., "real" Roman Latin or the "vulgar" Church Latin that developed later, which all the educated people from Church studied and spoke), English sure has an awful lot of Latin cognate words...

So even though the languages are different, they are similar and the culture is way more similar than that of, say Russia or Japan and China, or Persia, Arabs etc, usually referred to as the "East" in general.

I've never really considered the "West" to be much defined, in this day and age, of Political Leanings as much as it did the origin of "Western" culture as opposed to "Eastern" culture, the latter of which doesn't have as good a fixed definition because of the great differences of origin between "Eastern" cultures.

 

[scotttswan]

That's profoundly racist. Japan has always been in the "First World" but obviously not "Western"

it all depends on what we call "Western". There are several definitions.

First, the geographical opposition between Europe and Asia, but that alone has turned out to be a too simple definition, as Australia or New Zealand are more East than Asia, but definitely Western. So is it a cultural or ethnic distinction rather purely geographical ?

Secondly, Western used to refer to the Capitalist world during the cold war. The East-West opposition was especially valid for Europe, but on a global point of view, America the NATO countries laid West, while the communist world (not only the USSR, but also China and North Korea) laid East.

Finally (I think), most Europeans consider that a Western country is about the same as an industrialised/developped one.

The 2 latter points, Japan is definitely Western, and I think that's also where most Europeans would place Japan (from the opinions I have heard). Nonetheless, Japanese always stress the opposition between themselves and Westerners (or foreigners in general). They certainly not feel Western, but what if others consider them as such because they have a different definition ?

from another forum.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

So I guess Sweden, Switzerland and Finland, all non aligned nations and therefore not part of the first world, are not western countries.

First world: NATO countries.
Second world: Soviet block.
Third world: everyone else.

Anachronistic categories.

 

[toongeorges]

Argentina is not a "Western country?" Is it Asian? African? Circumpolar? How do you slice and dice your hemispheres?

I do not say the following is a perfect classification of countries, though it would be something along:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations#/media/File:Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png

I consider "Western" countries as countries with a culture similar to Europe minus Russia(/Belarus/Ukraine/Balkan countries). Basically this is Europe + USA + Canada + Australia + New Zealand.

I would not consider Argentina a Western country. I would categorise Argentina as a Latin American country.

Though there are similarities between Italy, Spain and Argentina, in my experience Spain and Italy are closer to Germany than to Argentina. One difference Latin American countries have with European countries is that they were once colonies and this still reflects in their current culture as follows:
* Wealth and power is much more concentrated in Latin American countries.
* Latin American countries have not developed strong independent interest groups that act as a counter balance to government.
* Governments are more authoritarian/unstable.
* People are less emancipated.

The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were once colonies too, but they went through an emancipation process that makes them look like European countries on many levels and this emancipation process did not fully occur in Latin America. Latin America is still living with the inheritance of colonisation.

 

[camberiu]

Wow, I am learning a lot.

So the US, Sweden and New Zealand have more in common with the birthplaces of western civilization (Italy and Greece) than Italy and Greece have with Latin America.

Also, Greece is the birthplace of the Western world. But Russia, which is culturally extremely close the Greece, is not. And the US, Sweden and New Zealand are closer culturally to Greece than Russia is.


Got it.

 

[syngirl]

How about you try out:

Developed or Industrialized countries (paises industrializados o desarrollados) -- ie Japan / USA / Australia / UK / Sweden etc etc etc

Developing countries (paises en vias de desarrollo) -- Argentina, but also Ghana -- so the category is a bit ridiculously large

And NICs or Newly Industrialized Countries ie Brasil (Paises recientemente industrializados)


Developing countries can be construed as negative, and I have to admit even I've had that reaction "How can Argentina fall into the developing country category along with a whole bunch of other countries that are much more underdeveloped".. But that's because when we live in nice barrios of Buenos Aires we tend to forget about the conditions in Chaco, Formosa, Santiago del Estero etc. Anyone who wants to consider Argentina a developed country should take a trip to rural Argentina and then they may realise the true state of things beyond Capital.


Of course, these definitions are from the IMF/FMI so there is of course backlash against these being their categories as well.

 

[Joe]

Argentina took everything from Italy and Spain, viz. corruption and late dining respectively.