4 ms·

It's a euro-centric term. The West of Europe has a historical bias towards freedom of expression, democracy, religious freedom (arguable) etc, and that got exte

It's a euro-centric term. The West of Europe has a historical bias towards freedom of expression, democracy, religious freedom (arguable) etc, and that got extended to include America when it got big enough to join the party. The East of Europe, by comparison, tended to authoritarianism, and that extended to include China when it got big enough to join the party. Of course, it depends on where you draw the line on East vs West - Germany could be either, or both, and historically has been all flavours of political spectrum. As others have said, it makes no sense from an American viewpoint because geography. The christian evangelic movement is very authoritarian, which makes them Eastern. Christianity (or professed christianity) doesn't automatically make them Western.

kgarten 4y ago
>the west of Europe has a historical bias towards freedom of expression etc what?? since when ... ? Spain (franco, Spanish Inquisition)? France (Robespierre, Napoleon)? Germany? Italy(Mousolini)? ... most countries are now leaning towards freedom od expression, yet freedom of sppech is much more restricted compared to the US (and other countries) for example ... the term western does not make sense at all in this context. I sounds to me similar to "Judeo Christian values" something made up to exclude people.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  The French Revolution was decidedly atheist and leftwing. Most French thinkers of the time looked down on the American revolution and it's Christian values. The French revolution is more closely related to Marxism than what people generally refer to when they talk about Western roots. Similarly, Germany's Nazi party was highly anti-religious and anti Western values. Hitler said that, after the Jews, the Christians would be next on the chopping block. The Nazi party explicitly sought out to destroy the Christian values of universal human dignity and the responsibility to care for the poor and needy. The fascist movement similarly rejected Christian Western roots. Giovanni Gentile, father of fascism, was decidedly atheist. His influence, H.W.F Hegel, was also a strong influence of Karl Marx. I don't know much about the history of the Spanish inquisition, but most of the examples you gave were of people in the west who were actively rejecting Western tradition. Not coincidentally, they all came up with something far worse and far more evil. When you achieve a local maximum as great as we have, it's virtually impossible to make any revolutionary change that is not catastrophic.
  - kgarten 4y ago
    The traditional interpretation of the French Revolution is that of a class struggle (and communists, also Marx, later used it as argumentation). Yet, it also had anarchist, socialist and feminist roots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune In regard to Nazis, most Nazis were Christian and the church was integrated in the state. I assume Hitler didn't like the catholic church much, yet he would have never been able to act against Christians as he did against Jews. Hitler declared himself "Not a Catholic, but a German Christian." (Also seeing that most of his officers and people working with him were christian, it's highly questionable). Compared to Mussolini (and Genitle), Hitler saw atheists as "stupid and animal like" ... "The fascist movement similarly rejected Christian Western roots" Seeing that Hitler read and focused a lot on old German occultism, hypnotism, and astrology, you could say he was going back to the roots. > to destroy the Christian values of universal human dignity and the responsibility to care for the poor and needy. Universal Human Dignity is not a particular Christian value or Christian in nature. It seems much more grounded in the French Revolution (anarchists, socialists, feminists, and communists). I also don't see much of universal human dignity in the history of the West (whatever is included in it). Inquisition, Crusades, World War I ? ;) "the responsibility to care for the poor and needy" The Nazi party came to power because of too many poor and needy ... Can you define "Western tradition"? What is part of it and what is not? I have a hard time understanding this concept. If I check Wikipedia on this, it seems Australia and Russia are part of Western Culture ... The concept is fuzzy and confusing. "When you achieve a local maximum as great as we have ..." I have trouble with wording like that and the exceptionalism that it implies. If Human rights are universal, we should not try to take possession of them based on our view on history. I was not part of any of the struggles of the people before me and cannot be proud of the fact that I was luckily born on a specific GPS coordinate that makes me German (part of the "West"). https://theglobalobservatory.org/2018/10/are-human-rights-a-western-concept/ https://theglobalobservatory.org/2018/10/are-human-rights-a-...
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      I appreciate your response, but we will have to continue to disagree on just about everything. From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hated-judaism-he-loathed-christianity-too/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hat... "Hitler hated Judaism. But he loathed Christianity, too. Hitler’s mother was a devout Catholic. His father considered religion a scam." Also: “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.” Also: "By 1942, Hitler vowed, according to Bullock, to “root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches,” describing them as “the evil that is gnawing our vitals.”" Hitler may have made public statements about being Christian, but those were probably more along the lines of him putting on a show to convince his fellow countrymen to follow him. He was as anti-Christian as they come, as was his Nazi movement. We will also have to disagree about the roots of universal human dignity. Here are some readings I might suggest: https://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Making-Western-Tom-Holland/dp/1408706954 https://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Making-Western-Tom-Holland/d... https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/1400062284 https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-C... https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Activism-Chinese-Societies-Christianity/dp/1611463238 https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Activism-Chinese-Societies-... And here is a good short video with snippets of interviews with the historian Tom Holland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_XOor7lRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_XOor7lRI When I refer to "Western tradition", I am referring to the Judeo-Christian tradition which singularly gave rise to, among other things, the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, and the constitution of the United States, which itself is heavily based on English law. You should have no trouble with the exceptionalism implied by my statement. We live in the most prosperous and privileged time in recorded human history, and, it's not even a remotely close contest compared to any other time period! It's sad there are so many intent on tearing it down, thinking they'll build something better on top of the ruins, all while failing to truly understand and appreciate what we have and how we got here.
sofixa 4y ago
> The West of Europe has a historical bias towards freedom of expression, democracy, religious freedom (arguable) etc, and that got extended to include America when it got big enough to join the party You're going to have to be more precise with the epoch you think that happened, but it doesn't sound true. Whenever you consider the US "got big enough to join the party" (the absolute latest I would accept is WWI), democracy was a rare thing. Name one "Western" country that was democratic, really, for more than 40 years during WWI. The closest you can get to are a few constitutional monarchies with at least lots of de jure, usually also de facto monarch power, Switzerland and San Marino.
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  yeah, this is all very hand-wavy from the get-go
- tremon 4y ago
  Name one "Western" country that was democratic, really, for more than 40 years during WWI That "really" gives you a lot of wiggle room to move the goalposts, since before WWI women generally weren't allowed to vote, and in many countries voting was mainly limited to the aristocracy (or other criteria). So there were no "real" late-20th century democracies anywhere in the 19th century. The closest you can get to are a few constitutional monarchies See, you're moving the goalposts already. Why would constitutional monarchies not qualify as "real"? So, taking the same wiggle room you have allowed yourself, there's the United Kingdom (1689), Sweden (1809), Spain (1812), Norway (1814), The Netherlands (1815), Belgium (1831), Switzerland (1848), and Portugal (1852).
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > See, you're moving the goalposts already. Why would constitutional monarchies not qualify as "real"? My next sentence explains why: > monarchies with at least lots of de jure, usually also de facto monarch power Having an unelected head of state with lots of power isn't a "real" democracy, in my book. Places where the monarch could appoint a government and dissolve parliament at will, directly own colonies for personal exploitation, etc. were hardly "really" democratic, which excludes more than half your list (Spain depending on time of year, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands,, UK, and I can't be bothered to look but fairly sure also Norway, Sweden, Denmark). I already mentioned Switzerland, which wasn't a monarchy (at the federal level), but yes, was democratic. There's also San Marino.

kgarten 4y ago

>the west of Europe has a historical bias towards freedom of expression etc what?? since when ... ? Spain (franco, Spanish Inquisition)? France (Robespierre, Napoleon)? Germany? Italy(Mousolini)? ... most countries are now leaning towards freedom od expression, yet freedom of sppech is much more restricted compared to the US (and other countries) for example ... the term western does not make sense at all in this context. I sounds to me similar to "Judeo Christian values" something made up to exclude people.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
The French Revolution was decidedly atheist and leftwing. Most French thinkers of the time looked down on the American revolution and it's Christian values. The French revolution is more closely related to Marxism than what people generally refer to when they talk about Western roots. Similarly, Germany's Nazi party was highly anti-religious and anti Western values. Hitler said that, after the Jews, the Christians would be next on the chopping block. The Nazi party explicitly sought out to destroy the Christian values of universal human dignity and the responsibility to care for the poor and needy. The fascist movement similarly rejected Christian Western roots. Giovanni Gentile, father of fascism, was decidedly atheist. His influence, H.W.F Hegel, was also a strong influence of Karl Marx. I don't know much about the history of the Spanish inquisition, but most of the examples you gave were of people in the west who were actively rejecting Western tradition. Not coincidentally, they all came up with something far worse and far more evil. When you achieve a local maximum as great as we have, it's virtually impossible to make any revolutionary change that is not catastrophic.
- kgarten 4y ago
  The traditional interpretation of the French Revolution is that of a class struggle (and communists, also Marx, later used it as argumentation). Yet, it also had anarchist, socialist and feminist roots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune In regard to Nazis, most Nazis were Christian and the church was integrated in the state. I assume Hitler didn't like the catholic church much, yet he would have never been able to act against Christians as he did against Jews. Hitler declared himself "Not a Catholic, but a German Christian." (Also seeing that most of his officers and people working with him were christian, it's highly questionable). Compared to Mussolini (and Genitle), Hitler saw atheists as "stupid and animal like" ... "The fascist movement similarly rejected Christian Western roots" Seeing that Hitler read and focused a lot on old German occultism, hypnotism, and astrology, you could say he was going back to the roots. > to destroy the Christian values of universal human dignity and the responsibility to care for the poor and needy. Universal Human Dignity is not a particular Christian value or Christian in nature. It seems much more grounded in the French Revolution (anarchists, socialists, feminists, and communists). I also don't see much of universal human dignity in the history of the West (whatever is included in it). Inquisition, Crusades, World War I ? ;) "the responsibility to care for the poor and needy" The Nazi party came to power because of too many poor and needy ... Can you define "Western tradition"? What is part of it and what is not? I have a hard time understanding this concept. If I check Wikipedia on this, it seems Australia and Russia are part of Western Culture ... The concept is fuzzy and confusing. "When you achieve a local maximum as great as we have ..." I have trouble with wording like that and the exceptionalism that it implies. If Human rights are universal, we should not try to take possession of them based on our view on history. I was not part of any of the struggles of the people before me and cannot be proud of the fact that I was luckily born on a specific GPS coordinate that makes me German (part of the "West"). https://theglobalobservatory.org/2018/10/are-human-rights-a-western-concept/ https://theglobalobservatory.org/2018/10/are-human-rights-a-...
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    I appreciate your response, but we will have to continue to disagree on just about everything. From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hated-judaism-he-loathed-christianity-too/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hat... "Hitler hated Judaism. But he loathed Christianity, too. Hitler’s mother was a devout Catholic. His father considered religion a scam." Also: “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.” Also: "By 1942, Hitler vowed, according to Bullock, to “root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches,” describing them as “the evil that is gnawing our vitals.”" Hitler may have made public statements about being Christian, but those were probably more along the lines of him putting on a show to convince his fellow countrymen to follow him. He was as anti-Christian as they come, as was his Nazi movement. We will also have to disagree about the roots of universal human dignity. Here are some readings I might suggest: https://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Making-Western-Tom-Holland/dp/1408706954 https://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Making-Western-Tom-Holland/d... https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/1400062284 https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-C... https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Activism-Chinese-Societies-Christianity/dp/1611463238 https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Activism-Chinese-Societies-... And here is a good short video with snippets of interviews with the historian Tom Holland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_XOor7lRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_XOor7lRI When I refer to "Western tradition", I am referring to the Judeo-Christian tradition which singularly gave rise to, among other things, the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, and the constitution of the United States, which itself is heavily based on English law. You should have no trouble with the exceptionalism implied by my statement. We live in the most prosperous and privileged time in recorded human history, and, it's not even a remotely close contest compared to any other time period! It's sad there are so many intent on tearing it down, thinking they'll build something better on top of the ruins, all while failing to truly understand and appreciate what we have and how we got here.

sofixa 4y ago

> The West of Europe has a historical bias towards freedom of expression, democracy, religious freedom (arguable) etc, and that got extended to include America when it got big enough to join the party You're going to have to be more precise with the epoch you think that happened, but it doesn't sound true. Whenever you consider the US "got big enough to join the party" (the absolute latest I would accept is WWI), democracy was a rare thing. Name one "Western" country that was democratic, really, for more than 40 years during WWI. The closest you can get to are a few constitutional monarchies with at least lots of de jure, usually also de facto monarch power, Switzerland and San Marino.

marcus_holmes 4y ago
yeah, this is all very hand-wavy from the get-go
tremon 4y ago
Name one "Western" country that was democratic, really, for more than 40 years during WWI That "really" gives you a lot of wiggle room to move the goalposts, since before WWI women generally weren't allowed to vote, and in many countries voting was mainly limited to the aristocracy (or other criteria). So there were no "real" late-20th century democracies anywhere in the 19th century. The closest you can get to are a few constitutional monarchies See, you're moving the goalposts already. Why would constitutional monarchies not qualify as "real"? So, taking the same wiggle room you have allowed yourself, there's the United Kingdom (1689), Sweden (1809), Spain (1812), Norway (1814), The Netherlands (1815), Belgium (1831), Switzerland (1848), and Portugal (1852).
- sofixa 4y ago
  > See, you're moving the goalposts already. Why would constitutional monarchies not qualify as "real"? My next sentence explains why: > monarchies with at least lots of de jure, usually also de facto monarch power Having an unelected head of state with lots of power isn't a "real" democracy, in my book. Places where the monarch could appoint a government and dissolve parliament at will, directly own colonies for personal exploitation, etc. were hardly "really" democratic, which excludes more than half your list (Spain depending on time of year, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands,, UK, and I can't be bothered to look but fairly sure also Norway, Sweden, Denmark). I already mentioned Switzerland, which wasn't a monarchy (at the federal level), but yes, was democratic. There's also San Marino.