3 ms·

Since when is Mexico not a Western country?

by wnoise 7y ago

dijit 7y ago
Feels like this comment is coming from a place of anger or a presumption that: 1) I'm a US citizen (I'm not). 2) Mexicans are shot at the border when trying to get through normal US customs checks, like in an airport (They're not). 3) that the Mexicans that are actually being shot on the border by the border guard is seen by the international community as acceptable (It isn't). But, for the sake of refuting what you _actually_ said, lets go with "Western as an economic definition": From Wikpedia: -----8<----- The term "Western world" is sometimes interchangeably used with the term First World or developed countries, stressing the difference between First World and the Third World or developing countries. This usage occurs despite the fact that many countries that may be culturally "Western" are developing countries – in fact, a significant percentage of the Americas are developing countries. It is also used despite many developed countries or regions not being Western (e.g. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao), and therefore left out when "Western world" is used to denote developed countries. Privatization policies (involving government enterprises and public services) and multinational corporations are often considered a visible sign of Western nations's economic presence, especially in Third World countries, and represent common institutional environment for powerful politicians, enterprises, trade unions and firms, bankers and thinkers of the Western world. ----->8----- So, "Western" is often used interchangably with first world; Countries in the first world, also according to wikipedia: -----8<----- Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, West Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Western-aligned countries included: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan The neutral countries included: Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and (now former) Yugoslavia. ----->8----- This is because "First world"/"Western" has roots in the cold war. "Second world" == Soviet bloc "Third world" == everywhere else. (yes, that's a tepid definition when you think about it because most people take it to mean impoverished)
- johnmaguire2013 7y ago
  Wikipedia also says... > According to Samuel P. Huntington, some countries are torn on whether they are Western or not, with typically the national leadership pushing for Westernization, while historical, cultural and traditional forces remaining largely non-Western. [...] Mexico and Russia are also considered to be torn by Huntington. (Hi dijit!)
- wnoise 7y ago
  It is coming from a place of anger, because despite your protests, (3) is an accurate description. Anger is an appropriate response to this state of affairs. This boy was killed at the U.S. border. Anytime nobody makes an effort to address something, it is de facto acceptable. There might be solid reasons it is not being addressed, such as lack of power, or too high a cost to attempt to put pressure on the U.S. But it remains the case that it is currently considered acceptable.

Since when is Mexico not a Western country?

by wnoise 7y ago

Since when is Mexico not a Western country?

Feels like this comment is coming from a place of anger or a presumption that: 1) I'm a US citizen (I'm not). 2) Mexicans are shot at the border when trying to get through normal US customs checks, like in an airport (They're not). 3) that the Mexicans that are actually being shot on the border by the border guard is seen by the international community as acceptable (It isn't). But, for the sake of refuting what you _actually_ said, lets go with "Western as an economic definition": From Wikpedia: -----8<----- The term "Western world" is sometimes interchangeably used with the term First World or developed countries, stressing the difference between First World and the Third World or developing countries. This usage occurs despite the fact that many countries that may be culturally "Western" are developing countries – in fact, a significant percentage of the Americas are developing countries. It is also used despite many developed countries or regions not being Western (e.g. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao), and therefore left out when "Western world" is used to denote developed countries. Privatization policies (involving government enterprises and public services) and multinational corporations are often considered a visible sign of Western nations's economic presence, especially in Third World countries, and represent common institutional environment for powerful politicians, enterprises, trade unions and firms, bankers and thinkers of the Western world. ----->8----- So, "Western" is often used interchangably with first world; Countries in the first world, also according to wikipedia: -----8<----- Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, West Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Western-aligned countries included: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan The neutral countries included: Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and (now former) Yugoslavia. ----->8----- This is because "First world"/"Western" has roots in the cold war. "Second world" == Soviet bloc "Third world" == everywhere else. (yes, that's a tepid definition when you think about it because most people take it to mean impoverished)

johnmaguire2013 7y ago
Wikipedia also says... > According to Samuel P. Huntington, some countries are torn on whether they are Western or not, with typically the national leadership pushing for Westernization, while historical, cultural and traditional forces remaining largely non-Western. [...] Mexico and Russia are also considered to be torn by Huntington. (Hi dijit!)
wnoise 7y ago
It is coming from a place of anger, because despite your protests, (3) is an accurate description. Anger is an appropriate response to this state of affairs. This boy was killed at the U.S. border. Anytime nobody makes an effort to address something, it is de facto acceptable. There might be solid reasons it is not being addressed, such as lack of power, or too high a cost to attempt to put pressure on the U.S. But it remains the case that it is currently considered acceptable.