# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  What is Western Culture?

## Fire Haired14

I've seen people use different definitions for Western Culture/Civilization. Sometimes it means Western Rome's legacy in Western Europe, Greek legacy in Europe(and the Middle East), post-Enlightenment Capitalist Industrial North America and Western Europe, Christendom Medieval Western Europe(Catholic Church). I think some of you here like Maciamo and Angela could give good answers. 

To some people I think it just means being of European/White decent. I think some people if asked would consider the Amish or Saami Western but wouldn't consider African Americans Western. Some people would consider Spanish of the 1600s Western but wouldn't consider modern Hispanics in America Western. Do you guys agree the Western cultural label is almost as much about race to some as it is about culture?

----------


## Angela

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

----------


## LeBrok

I think you are making one big mistake considering a skin colour or shape of head or nose as a part of culture. One aspect is strictly genetic, the other almost entirely learnet.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> I've seen people use different definitions for Western Culture/Civilization. Sometimes it means Western Rome's legacy in Western Europe, Greek legacy in Europe(and the Middle East), post-Enlightenment Capitalist Industrial North America and Western Europe, Christendom Medieval Western Europe(Catholic Church). I think some of you here like Maciamo and Angela could give good answers. 
> 
> To some people I think it just means being of European/White decent. I think some people if asked would consider the Amish or Saami Western but wouldn't consider African Americans Western. Some people would consider Spanish of the 1600s Western but wouldn't consider modern Hispanics in America Western. Do you guys agree the Western cultural label is almost as much about race to some as it is about culture?


The term doesn't mean anything and it is mostly political. Today it is more close to 'post-Enlightenment Capitalist Industrial North America and Western Europe' but not exactly that.
Politically, 'the West' today is "EU28/EEA, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand". (That's the definition used by Norwegian statistics bureau).

----------


## bicicleur

it depends on how you define European culture and what meaning you give to it

----------


## Angela

"*Western culture*, sometimes equated with *Western civilization*, *Occidental culture*, the *Western world*, *Western society* or *European civilization* is a term used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe. The term also applies beyond Europe, to countries and cultures whose histories are strongly connected to Europe by immigration, colonisation, or influence. For example, _Western Culture_ includes countries in the Americas and Australasia, whose language and demographic ethnicity majorities are currently European.Western culture is characterized by a host of artistic, philosophic, literary, and legal themes and traditions; the heritage of Greek, Roman, Jewish,[1]Celtic, Slavic, and other ethnic and linguistic groups,[2][_better source needed_][3][_better source needed_] as well as Christianity including the Roman Catholic Church,[4][5][6] and the Orthodox Church,[7][8]which played an important part in the shaping of Western civilization since at least the 4th century.[9][10][11][12][13] Before the Cold War era, the traditional Western viewpoint identified Western Civilization with the Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries and culture.[14][15]
A cornerstone of Western thought, beginning in ancient Greece and continuing through the Middle Ages and Renaissance and into modern times, is a tradition of rationalism in various spheres of life, developed by Hellenistic philosophy, Scholasticism, humanism, the Scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. Values of Western culture have, throughout history, been derived from political thought, widespread employment of rational argument favouring freethought, assimilation of human rights, the need for equality, and democracy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

I have nothing to add to that. This is what every Western Civ course teaches.

----------


## Goga

The Western Civilization started in Greece, but the Hellenic Civilization started in the Northern Mesopotamia (among the Sumerians/Gutians of Kurdistan)...

----------


## Goga

Sumerians built the FIRST cities. Sumerians not only invented the writing system, but also the advanced mathematics (algebra, geometry). The Sumerians developed a system of numbers based on a unit of 60. We still use their development of time measurement, 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in an hour and the division of a circle into 360 degrees. Also divided a week in 7 days (invented by the ancient Gutians of Kurdistan ~ 2600BC). Etc.. 

http://www.storyofmathematics.com/sumerian.html


Greek philosophers took many things from the ancient Iranians/Aryans (Medes & Persians), from the Zoroastrian philosophy.



" _Sumer (a region of Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq) was the birthplace of writing, the wheel, agriculture, the arch, the plow, irrigation and many other innovations, and is often referred to as the Cradle of Civilization. The Sumerians developed the earliest known writing system - a pictographic writing system known as cuneiform script, using wedge-shaped characters inscribed on baked clay tablets - and this has meant that we actually have more knowledge of ancient Sumerian and Babylonian mathematics than of early Egyptian mathematics. Indeed, we even have what appear to school exercises in arithmetic and geometric problems.__

The Sumerian System, called "sexagesimal", combined a mundane 10... with a "celestial" 6, to obtain the base figure 60. This system is in some ways superior to our present one, and much superior to later Greek and Roman systems. It enabled Sumerians to divide into fractions and multiply into the million, to calculate roots or raise numbers several powers._ "

http://www.mathematicsmagazine.com/A...p#.WHaPpIWcGUk

----------


## Fire Haired14

So is this correct....

"Western Culture/Civilization"=European Cultures/Civilizations. So it is partially defined by race(being in Europe or derived from Europe)? But there are some specifics which cross racial borders; influence from ancient Greek thinkers(Which helped create Renaissance, Enlightenment, and academics), Christianity, and Capitalism(?). 

Here's a question for everyone. Are African Americans more Western than the Amish? I definitely think so. I have a textbook which considers White Americans and Europeans Western but doesn't consider African Americans Western. We definitely share more in common with African Americans than French. So it kind of annoys me people restrict Western Culture to European-descended people when descendants of European colonies are racially mixed countries. If Latin Americans weren't admixed with Native Americans and didn't have brown skin I guarantee you they'd be considered Western. 




> it depends on how you define European culture and what meaning you give to it


That's kind of what I think.

----------


## Milan.M

I would say that western civilization begin with and as quoted by Angela 


> the traditional Western viewpoint identified Western Civilization with the Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries and culture.


Maciamo has good article on the Franks and western world which is bit patriotic but i agree with it;
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/franki...n_europe.shtml

We mention various influences and want to make it one but we still make distinction between west and east,ocidental and oriental,catholic or orthodox,so let me add;
While i will say that the Franks were influenced or rather copied from previous Roman world,such is religion,code of law,claiming themselves to be Romans,the kings claiming heritage of Constantine by church,law etc,without this knowledge how to run an empire i personaly doubt they could ever unite the disorganized "pagan" tribes and make an empire.Just see how the "disorganized" Celts previosly ended even brave as they were,their "invasions" were the biggest mistake and end for them instead,which is agreed among historians.The religion in my opinion didn't worked so well for old Roman empire because they knew more and divide into "sects" and regions which will lead to emerging of new empires in diferent regions.
Greeks copied much of their knowledge from Egyptians which was not secret to the wise among them,Rome from previous and son on..
The foundation of today western world is legacy of the establishment of western empire by Franks and their descendants and allies.While the more modern world from age of enlightenment,the power was still there from that foundation.The old power vanished,still i don't see neither Greece nor Italy as most powerful or developed countries on our continent,i don't like to insult anyone with this.

----------


## Angela

> So is this correct....
> 
> "Western Culture/Civilization"=European Cultures/Civilizations. So it is partially defined by race(being in Europe or derived from Europe)? But there are some specifics which cross racial borders; influence from ancient Greek thinkers(Which helped create Renaissance, Enlightenment, and academics), Christianity, and Capitalism(?). 
> 
> Here's a question for everyone. Are African Americans more Western than the Amish? I definitely think so. I have a textbook which considers White Americans and Europeans Western but doesn't consider African Americans Western. We definitely share more in common with African Americans than French. So it kind of annoys me people restrict Western Culture to European-descended people when descendants of European colonies are racially mixed countries. If Latin Americans weren't admixed with Native Americans and didn't have brown skin I guarantee you they'd be considered Western. 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of what I think.


Fire-Haired, the statement which I quoted does include Latin Americans. I agree with that. As to African-Americans, of course they're now part of the western cultural tradition. Most of their ancestors weren't part of creating it, however. 

I don't like excluding any group or comparing groups as to whether they are more or less part of western civilization. I think one could say, however, and be factual, that the Amish have turned their backs on some modern manifestations of the European/western cultural tradition. 

The Greeks started the European cultural tradition. If they aren't European, then it doesn't exist.

----------


## Goga

> So is this correct....
> 
> "Western Culture/Civilization"=European Cultures/Civilizations. So it is partially defined by race(being in Europe or derived from Europe)?


Western Culture/Civilization started in Greece (Europe) and later spread mostly across the whole Europe. So, yeah it is an 'European' phenomenon. 

I think that the 'European Civilization' started with and can be specifically defined by 'rationality'. Rationality and 'rational thinking' is something very 'European'. IMO it started with the *causality* (cause and effect) of *Aristotle*. This was the moment when a stone started rolling. People like Socrates & Plato also heavily contributed at the beginning of the Western Civilization.

----------


## Angela

> Western Culture/Civilization started in Greece (Europe) and later spread mostly across the whole Europe. So, yeah it is an 'European' phenomenon. 
> 
> I think that the 'European Civilization' started and can be specifically defined by 'rationality'. Rationality and 'rational thinking' is something very 'European'. IMO it started with the *causality* (cause and effect) of *Aristotle*. This was the moment when a stone started rolling. People like Socrates & Plato also heavily contributed at the beginning of the Western Civilization.


Excellent point, Goga.

----------


## bicicleur

> Western Culture/Civilization started in Greece (Europe) and later spread mostly across the whole Europe. So, yeah it is an 'European' phenomenon. 
> 
> I think that the 'European Civilization' started and can be specifically defined by 'rationality'. Rationality and 'rational thinking' is something very 'European'. IMO it started with the *causality* (cause and effect) of *Aristotle*. This was the moment when a stone started rolling. People like Socrates & Plato also heavily contributed at the beginning of the Western Civilization.


yes, but it all was forgotten for 1500 years or so

it's ony when people like Gallileo or Copernicus or Newton came around that further progress was made
they made the first universal laws

it was the base for the industrial revolution to follow

----------


## MarkoZ

I contend that 'the West' cannot be understood without Castoriadis' concept of alterity: the Occident is defined by its contraposition with regards to the contrasting entity of the Orient. Without an entity that it stands in opposition to, the concept of the West falls apart due to a lack of internal continuity. For example, I can't think of a place more alien to the modern European than ancient Greece, yet the Greek heritage is usually considered to be a cornerstone of the European tradition. The Medieval states were in every conceivable way closer to modern Saudi Arabia than to, say, contemporary Iceland to give another obvious example.

If there are defining influences that could be tenuously linked to the emergence of the modern West the Enlightenment would probably come to mind, and more specifically perhaps Kant and his successors. Though in practice I'd think even these are not nearly as important as the changes brought about by consumer capitalism.

----------


## Goga

> I contend that 'the West' cannot be understood without Castoriadis' concept of alterity: the Occident is defined by its contraposition with regards to the contrasting entity of the Orient. Without an entity that it stands in opposition to, the concept of the West falls apart due to a lack of internal continuity. For example, I can't think of a place more alien to the modern European than ancient Greece, yet the Greek heritage is usually considered to be a cornerstone of the European tradition. The Medieval states were in every conceivable way closer to modern Saudi Arabia than to, say, contemporary Iceland to give another obvious example.
> 
> If there are defining influences that could be tenuously linked to the emergence of the modern West the Enlightenment would probably come to mind, and more specifically perhaps Kant and his successors. Though in practice I'd think even these are not nearly as important as the changes brought about by consumer capitalism.


I do understand that the 'modern' Europe started with the 'Peace of Westphalia'. But there have always been shifts of paradigm. I think you are confusing concepts like liberalism and capitalism with the Western Civilization. You are actually devaluating the whole Western Civilization. The Western Civilization is much more than liberalism and capitalism. It is going much further/deeper into the history. What about the concept of the so called 'democracy' in the city state of Athens?

With other words: you are only talking about the 'modern' Europe. But what about the 'ancient' Europe? The Western Civilization and the modern way of the European thinking/*reasoning* started IN the ancient Europe. Without the 'ancient' Europe (Greeks & Romans) there would be never the 'modern' Europe!

----------


## João Soares

> Western Culture/Civilization started in Greece (Europe) and later spread mostly across the whole Europe. So, yeah it is an 'European' phenomenon. 
> 
> I think that the 'European Civilization' started with and can be specifically defined by 'rationality'. Rationality and 'rational thinking' is something very 'European'. IMO it started with the *causality* (cause and effect) of *Aristotle*. This was the moment when a stone started rolling. People like Socrates & Plato also heavily contributed at the beginning of the Western Civilization.


You know, I have recently (one to two years) started to read Aristotle (_Eudemian Ethics, Politics_ and started to read in a bookshop this Christmas _On the Soul_) and it has been a very enriched experience. It certainly puts things (and particularly your thought) in perspective, and you do see that he has no second intentions (that I noticed) when he treats his subjects.

I think one of the reasons for this has to do with the word _philosophy_ – which can account for “*friend of wisdom*” / “*love for knowledge*” (If there is a Greek member that can confirm this, please). This means that you are not competing for an idea, or for your idea to prevail over others, at least not with that intention or finality – it simply cares about the finding of knowledge by logic arguments – this is at least where I am right now regarding philosophy and/or Aristotle. 

I must add that I do not have an academic degree on Philosophy.

EDIT - but sorry, maybe a little off topic

----------


## Angela

> yes, but it all was forgotten for 1500 years or so
> 
> it's ony when people like Gallileo or Copernicus or Newton came around that further progress was made
> they made the first universal laws
> 
> it was the base for the industrial revolution to follow


In my opinion that isn't precisely accurate Bicicleur. Later Scholasticism was based on the writings of Aristotle, and to a lesser degree on Neo-Platonism. It was only later during the Renaissance in Italy, and especially at the court of the Medici that Plato sort of overtook Aristotle. Of the two I'm inclined more to the Aristotelian view.

"Scholasticism is not so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, as it places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference and to resolve contradictions. Scholastic thought is also known for rigorous conceptual analysis and the careful drawing of distinctions. In the classroom and in writing, it often takes the form of explicit disputation; a topic drawn from the tradition is broached in the form of a question, opponents' responses are given, a counterproposal is argued and opponents' arguments rebutted. Because of its emphasis on rigorous dialectical method, scholasticism was eventually applied to many other fields of study.As a program, scholasticism began as an attempt at harmonization on the part of medieval Christian thinkers, to harmonize the various authorities of their own tradition, and to reconcile Christian theology with classical and late antiquity philosophy, especially that of Aristotle but also of Neoplatonism.[3] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism

Again, imo, your comment is largely correct about the scientific method.

The Socratic method, which is a type of dialectic method, is the teaching method at virtually every law school in the U.S. and many around the world. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

@Joao Soares,

As I said above, I lean more toward Aristotle than Plato. Both of the books you mentioned are very enlightening.

----------


## Goga

> You know, I have recently (one to two years) started to read Aristotle (_Eudemian Ethics, Politics_ and started to read in a bookshop this Christmas _On the Soul_) and it has been a very enriched experience. It certainly puts things (and particularly your thought) in perspective, and you do see that he has no second intentions (that I noticed) when he treats his subjects.
> 
> I think one of the reasons for this has to do with the word _philosophy_ – which can account for “*friend of wisdom*” / “*love for knowledge*”? (If there is a Greek member that can confirm this, please). This means that you are not competing for an idea, or for your idea to prevail over others, at least not with that intention or finality – it simply cares about the finding of knowledge by logic arguments – this is at least where I am right now regarding philosophy and/or Aristotle. 
> 
> I must add that I do not have an academic degree on Philosophy.
> 
> EDIT - but sorry, maybe a little off topic


The most imporant development/effect of ontological apporoach on some of fundamental issues by Aristotle is that it paved the way for (heavily influenced) phenomenology. You can see phenomenology as a very imporant part of the postmodern philosophical movement. It was practised by existentialist thinkers like Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Husserl and hermeneutic thinkers like Heidegger who explicated methologies that studied NorthEuropean Protestant writings in a more 'secular'/humanistic way.

But I don't think that he 'invented' ontology since it was (together with phenomenology) already practised by the ancient Zoroastrian (Magi), Hindu (Vedas) and Buddhist philosophers/priests.

But Aristotle's investigation of causality was really groundbreaking : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/


In regard to the theory of knowledge and actual justification of it; it is part of the philosophy called epistemology. Indeed, I believe that epistemologal methology (empiricism) can be also ascribed to the Aristotle's school of thoughts. He was maybe the first. Epistemology is not defined by _'what' is the truth_, but by _'how' you can find the truth =_ _causal knowledge__ +_ _empiricism_ (sensory experience, in practise deductive/inductive reasoning).

Ontology = *what* is the truth : Aristotle & Plato
Epistemology = *how* you can find the truth : Aristotle


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenom...y_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_epistemology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

----------


## MarkoZ

> I do understand that the 'modern' Europe started with the 'Peace of Westphalia'. But there have always been shifts of paradigm. I think you are confusing concepts like liberalism and capitalism with the Western Civilization. You are actually devaluating the whole Western Civilization. The Western Civilization is much more than liberalism and capitalism. It is going much further/deeper into the history. What about the concept of the so called 'democracy' in the city state of Athens?


I'd say it's largely the myh of democracy that links the modern Western system to Athenian democracy. A clever use of (in the most benign meaning of the term) political propaganda, but not really accurate. If the Hellenes were alive, they would probably classify the political system in the West as a sort of Plutocracy.




> With other words: you are only talking about the 'modern' Europe. But what about the 'ancient' Europe? The Western Civilization and the modern way of the European thinking/*reasoning* started IN the ancient Europe. Without the 'ancient' Europe (Greeks & Romans) there would be never the 'modern' Europe!


What set modern European science apart is the establishment of the experimental method. The invention thereof would be more accurately ascribed to the Arabs, though.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Good discussion going. I think there are multiple definitions of Western Culture which are used for different circumstances. For example in discussions about relations between Russia and "The West", "The West"=Liberal, Capitalist, 1st world countries in Western Europe, United States, Australia, a few others.

----------


## Angela

^^
You can't just define western civilization by scientific achievements. That's much too restrictive. Even if you were you seem to be ignoring the achievements of classical Greece. 

I'm not going to get into a long winded analysis of democracy. I would just say that in some ways Athenian democracy was also a plutocracy. The fact remains that this was not a development which took place in the east. 

Actually, I think the biggest differences between civilizations have to do with world view, ways of thinking about the world. That's what sets the west apart, and that all began with the Greeks. All of western thought is in some ways just an addendum to Plato and Aristotle, and that has affected the development of not only science, but religion, economics and political and social life. Philosophy influences the development of a culture even if most of the members of that culture have never taken a philosophy class or even know the names of any of these philosophers. 

I do agree with a comment you made upthread. The west has always been defined by contrast with the east and vice-versa.

----------


## Milan.M

And by what we drag the Greeks in "west".Whatever one will define it.If traditional western view hold that catholic/protestant countries are core of the west clearly Greeks were Orthodox,part of eastern empire,and if someone copied thoughts of Plato or Aristotle in some period of time what that has to do with anything.Greeks taking alphabet for example from Phoenicians or some knowledge from Egyptians didn't made them one of them.Ancient Greeks knew to much about Eastern Mediterranean cultures less I think about Scandinavia.I rather think is more imagination here and how we like to define our world including present day democracy and other things.This things are rather political.

----------


## Judith

Western culture means something different in different contexts. It may simply mean blind commercialism if as a middle eastern cleric you wish to condemn it. Or it can mean western liberal democratic capitalism. What it certainly isn't connected to in any context IMO is ethnicity so African Americans, medieval Spanish Amish etc all are in or out according to the context. The Amish would not wish to be considered part of western consumerism for example. Medieval Spain would not get far in being liberal.

----------


## firetown

When was the term Western Culture first used and in which reference? Definitely not while emperors and dynasties ruled. I would say it has a lot to do with kicking royalty off their thrones and the roaring 20s starting a new era. With the tiny interruption called Great Depression of course, but pretty quickly back on track right after that.

----------


## Milan.M

Have nothing against geographic names but I don't like If they have political,cold war or imperialist connotation and it's west,east,middle.We might need new political terms in future.This are man made boundaries,they were once geographic even in Roman empire,however they defined them.

----------


## IronSide

Western culture started with the renaissance

----------


## Vallicanus

> Western culture started with the renaissance


Western culture began with the ancient Greeks who absorbed much from the civilisations of the Fertile Crescent.

I think the Voyages of Discovery, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution influenced western Civilisation more than the Renaissance which was more of an elite culture.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Western culture began with the ancient Greeks who absorbed much from the civilisations of the Fertile Crescent.
> 
> I think the Voyages of Discovery, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution influenced western Civilisation more than the Renaissance which was more of an elite culture.


The culture has been always an elite thing until in the society emerged and developed a mass culture in the 20th century. Even before the Renaissance it's the Humanism that deeply influenced the Western Civilization. Without the reform and modernization triggered by the Renaissance, there would be no Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and Voyages of Discovery just as we have known them.

It is a long chain, which starts from the ancient Greece and ends today. But without a single ring in this long chain, Western Culture would be different.

----------


## Angela

> The culture has been always an elite thing until in the society emerged and developed a mass culture in the 20th century. Even before the Renaissance it's the Humanism that deeply influenced the Western Civilization. Without the reform and modernization triggered by the Renaissance, there would be no Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and Voyages of Discovery just as we have known them.
> 
> It is a long chain, which starts from the ancient Greece and ends today. But without a single ring in this long chain, Western Culture would be different.


Very well said. 

Just as one minor example, how do you have trade and industry without an international banking system, a systematized foreign exchange market, insurance, joint stock companies, double-entry book-keeping, and on and on, all invented at this time. The Renaissance was more than art, architecture, and literature; most importantly, it was a different way of looking at the world, which had revolutionary consequences as it spread through Europe into the Northern and English Renaissance.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Very well said. 
> 
> Just as one minor example, how do you have trade and industry without an international banking system, a systematized foreign exchange market, insurance, joint stock companies, double-entry book-keeping, and on and on, all invented at this time. The Renaissance was more than art, architecture, and literature; most importantly, it was a different way of looking at the world, which had revolutionary consequences as it spread through Europe into the Northern and English Renaissance.


If you really believe that the Italian trading republics were banking and commercial pioneers then you need to read books that show they were merely middlemen for the exchange of ideas (often from China and India) and goods between the Middle East and western Europe, eg

*The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization by John M. Hobson (2004).*

----------


## bicicleur

> If you really believe that the Italian trading republics were banking and commercial pioneers then you need to read books that show they were merely middlemen for the exchange of ideas (often from China and India) and goods between the Middle East and western Europe, eg
> 
> *The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization by John M. Hobson (2004).*


that would have been the role played by the Arabs and the Venetians who would do anything to keep their monopoly, even preventing exchange of ideas
but it was not what happened in Tuscany, they started looking for alternate ways

it is symptomatic that the story of the voyages of Marco Polo was not spread from Venice

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Just as one minor example, how do you have trade and industry without an international banking system, a systematized foreign exchange market, insurance, joint stock companies, double-entry book-keeping, and on and on, all invented at this time. The Renaissance was more than art, architecture, and literature; most importantly, it was a different way of looking at the world, which had revolutionary consequences as it spread through Europe into the Northern and English Renaissance.


Spread through Europe with the important role of Dutch and Flemish Renaissance, because of trade and commerce in cities like Antwerp and Bruges and the cultural exchange between Italy and Netherlands and Belgium.




> If you really believe that the Italian trading republics were banking and commercial pioneers then you need to read books that show they were merely middlemen for the exchange of ideas (often from China and India) and goods between the Middle East and western Europe, eg
> 
> *The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization by John M. Hobson (2004).*


That book is a typical example of historical revisionism that challenges a mainstream theory as the dominant theoretical position in the American/British sphere (that has little to do with the Italian trading republics and even less with the Tuscan Humanism that you wanted to deliberately add for your personal bias). I'm not saying that Hobson's book is a fraud, I'm saying that it's not enough to read a book if you're not able to put the book in the historical theory context which produced the book.




> it is symptomatic that the story of the voyages of Marco Polo was not spread from Venice


Well, actually It's claimed that Marco Polo's book was written in a Genoese prison by Rustichello da Pisa, a Tuscan writer who wrote the book under dictation in Old French.

----------


## Vallicanus

> that would have been the role played by the Arabs and the Venetians who would do anything to keep their monopoly, even preventing exchange of ideas
> but it was not what happened in Tuscany, they started looking for alternate ways
> 
> it is symptomatic that the story of the voyages of Marco Polo was not spread from Venice



I do not agree with what you are saying about Tuscan alternatives. Fibonacci of Pisa had to adopt "Arabic" numerals (partly derived from India) to improve Tuscan and indeed western commerce.
Please read Hobson's book.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Spread through Europe with the important role of Dutch and Flemish Renaissance, because of trade and commerce in cities like Antwerp and Bruges and the cultural exchange between Italy and Netherlands and Belgium.
> 
> 
> 
> That book is a typical example of historical revisionism that challenges a mainstream theory as the dominant theoretical position in the American/British sphere (that has little to do with the Italian trading republics that you wanted to deliberately add for your personal bias). I'm not saying that Hobson's book is a fraud, I'm saying that it's not enough to read a book if you're not able to put the book in the historical theory context which produced the book.



If you actually read the book it points out that the Italian city republics were not innovative but adaptive middlemen with ideas from the Islamic world which actually came from China and India in many cases.

----------


## Angela

> If you really believe that the Italian trading republics were banking and commercial pioneers then you need to read books that show they were merely middlemen for the exchange of ideas (often from China and India) and goods between the Middle East and western Europe, eg 
> *The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization by John M. Hobson (2004).*



And you need not to mislead people when you cite sources. Nothing in Hobson's book contradicts settled history about the beginnings of capitalism in Europe. Everything builds on everything else. Also, in case you didn't notice, Florence is also not Genova or Venezia. It's wealth was largely based on the wool trade with England, and its banking activities had to do with being, in effect, the national bank of various European "states". 

See:
Renaissance Florence, Cradle of Capitalism
http://www.economist.com/node/13484709

The book they are discussing is Richard Goldthwaites, The Economy of Renaissance Florence:
https://www.amazon.com/Economy-Renai...0881396&sr=8-1

Rational Capitalism in Renaissance Italy:
https://prezi.com/fnl85gww-zpy/capit...e-renaissance/

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/view...&context=pn_wp

From the above:
"What were the social and institutional factors that led to, and reinforced, theprecocious emergence of Florentine commercial capitalism,3 especially in the domain ofinternational merchant-banking? The dominant stream of answers, emphasized byeconomic historians and by economists, focuses on the invention in late-medieval andRenaissance Italy of a variety of innovative business techniques – bills of exchange,double-entry bookkeeping, partnership contracts, commercial courts."


There's nothing controversial or "nationalistic" about any of this. It is standard European history, as I was taught it in American universities by American professors with no ax of any kind to grind. Here, for example, is an outline for a university class. As you will see, the development of capitalism was indeed in some sense propelled by trade with the east. How does that change the fact that these new forms of economic organization, totally different from anything in the east, developed in these city-states?

See:
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/266LecN.html

" The capitalistic motive has always existed; however, after the fall of the Roman Empire, western civilization disintegrated and money all but went out of circulation for hundreds of years. At the height of the Crusades in the 12th and 13th centuries, soldiers returning from the Holy Lands not only brought back tales of the great and wonderful Muslim civilization they fought against but they also brought back a taste for earstern trade goods such as spices and silks. The Italian city-states gained notariety both for their work in ferrying the Crusaders from Europe over to Constantinople and the Holy Lands and for coming back on the return voyage loaded with those eastern goods. With the sack of a fellow Christian city, Constantinople, during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, the Venetians gained control over the failing Byzantine Empire for the next 50 years, together with all its wealth and its control over the east-west caravan routes. Thus, the Venetians became the earliest of the Italian city-states to gain the capital neccessary to finance both the Renaissance and overseas expansion"

"During the Renaissance, Italian merchants began to accumulate vast fortunes from east-west trade, they looked for ways to invest their capital."

"* They began by lending it to various kings, who were always strapped for cash, so they could raise their own paid armies, thus liberating them from dependence on the feudal nobility for the raising of troops."

*They also needed to develop structures and economic systems to make that money "work" for them, and they did.

I thought you had gotten over this sort of reflexive, anti-Italian nonsense, but I guess not. Personal prejudices like this do not advance reasoned discussion. It's also provocative and disruptive, so cut it out.

----------


## Vallicanus

I have Hobson's book and it does not say what you claim,sorry.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I have Hobson's book and it does not say what you claim,sorry.


Whatever, a single book doesn't ever contain the whole picture.




> I do not agree with what you are saying about Tuscan alternatives. Fibonacci of Pisa had to adopt "Arabic" numerals (partly derived from India) to improve Tuscan and indeed western commerce.
> Please read Hobson's book.


You're acting like a grumpy, but what you're saying doesn't change the whole picture, being none is denying that existence of external cultural contributions.

----------


## Vallicanus

> And you need not to mislead people when you cite sources. Nothing in Hobson's book contradicts settled history about the beginnings of capitalism in Europe. Everything builds on everything else. Also, in case you didn't notice, Florence is also not Genova or Venezia. It's wealth was largely based on the wool trade with England, and its banking activities had to do with being, in effect, the national bank of various European "states". 
> 
> See:
> Renaissance Florence, Cradle of Capitalism
> http://www.economist.com/node/13484709
> 
> The book they are discussing is Richard Goldthwaites, The Economy of Renaissance Florence:
> https://www.amazon.com/Economy-Renai...0881396&sr=8-1
> 
> ...



I have Hobson's book not those Eurocentred, Eurocentric references.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Whatever, a single book doesn't ever contain the whole picture.


Well, you can also check read "*ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age" by Andre Gunder Frank (1998).*

----------


## Angela

> I have Hobson's book and it does not say what you claim,sorry.


It is not what *I* claim. It is what scores of historians and economists from around the world claim. I could fill a book just with citations. It is what is taught in universities around the world. In any field you can find an outlier, revisionist source. Elhaik is an outlier in terms of Jewish genetics. How much credence are his views given nowadays? His views are ignored because his work isn't any good and is contradicted by actual good data.

Hobson's book isn't much good either. 

These are the kinds of doozies that abound in it:

https://books.google.com/books?id=KQ...orence&f=false

He just ignores anything that doesn't fit his ideological slant. Where, for example, are the early banks, joint stock companies and on and on in the Near East?

In any reasoned analysis one has to try to remove one's own prejudices as much as possible and look at objective facts. On that basis, Hobson's analysis is flawed. That's why it's such an outlier.

Listen, if for some reason you want to believe that every single advancement in European culture, in every single country, from Italy to France to Germany to England was stolen from the Near East, go ahead, but it's not reality.

I


> have Hobson's book not those Eurocentred, Eurocentric references.




Yes, you've chosen to support a flawed, revisionist Near East centered version of reality. One that distorts the historical record. Why?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Well, you can also check read "*ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age" by Andre Gunder Frank (1998).*


You're missing the point, Frank's book has very little to do with the topic of this thread, it's mostly focused on the decline of the East in 1800 (The Decline of the East Preceded the Rise of the West, page 264). Both Eurocentrism and anti-Eurocentrism have supporters. I would prefer not to.

----------


## Northener

In my opinion the biggest achievement of western culture is this:
http://www.jarofquotes.com/img/quote...316a45c6fc.jpg
but i must admit this wasn't always well treated by the samen western culture....(paradox) ;)

----------


## Maciamo

Very interesting discussion. 

First, to answer Fire Haired's question, culture is never dependent on ethnicity. Culture is by definition acquired, and it is partly acquired through language. Therefore any American, whatever their ethnic background is culturally American. 

Western culture is derived from Western civilisation. The term 'Western' is a modern invention aimed at bringing together the cultures of European countries and their former colonies and to oppose them to other "Eastern" (from a Eurasian point of view) civilisations, be it in the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent or East Asia. The common issue with the definition of Western is where to place the geographic limit to that Western part of Eurasia. Should it include Russia, which is as eastern as the Middle East, and from the 18th century even expanded all the way to East Asia? In ancient and medieval times, the "Western world", for Europeans, also referred to the Western Roman empire, the Catholic sphere of influence, while the "Eastern world" referred to the Byzantine, the also Orthodox spheres of influence. This neat division between western and eastern Europe took on a renewed significance during the Cold War, when Europe was once again divided almost perfectly in the middle, but this time with Latin and Germanic countries in the western capitalist half, and mostly Slavic countries in the eastern communist half. It is these two historical divisions within Europe that are usually problematic in the definition of 'Western' culture or civilisation. Should it be Western as in Europe vs Asia, or Western as in Western Europe vs Eastern Europe? Both meanings have been used, but since the end of the cold war, the spread of capitalism (and of the EU) to former Eastern Bloc nations, Westernness now tends to extend to all Europe. Needless to say that politics plays a major role in how we decide to define Westernness.


So what is Westernness and when did it really emerge? 

Some definitions include the Christian religion, or at least a Christian heritage, but if that were to be a defining characteristic, then Christian Egyptians (Copts), Syrians, Lebanese, Armenians, Indians or even Koreans could also have some claim to Westernness, which in my opinion they don't.

Language is an essential part of any culture, and indeed people almost always tend to feel culturally closer to people who speak the same language as them (see the English-speaking world, Spanish-speaking world, Arab world, etc.), or a closely related language (Germanics between them, Romance speakers between them, Chinese people whose "dialects" differ as much as Romance languages). One thing that helped shape the modern concept of Western culture is actually the English language, which is a hybrid of Germanic and Romance languages. After becoming the most widely spoken European language, and the most important politically, scientifically and so on, speakers of Germanic and Romance languages started feeling a bond between each others via English, a language that is easy to learn for either group. Many people underestimate (or completely fail to consider) the unifying influence of the English language on the Western world. Now English has become a truly international language in its reach, but it is also the language most strongly associated with modern Western culture or civilisation (whether that pleases other Europeans or not).

All the Indo-European linguistic family is ultimately related, so if language relatedness alone was the key to Westernness, North Indians, Iranians and Kurds would also be Western. That is obviously not the case since the term Western was always meant in geographic opposition between Europe (Western or all) and Asia. In any case, Indo-Iranian languages split 5000 years ago from the rest of IE languages, a rather long time to claim a close cultural tie. In fact, civilisations did not yet exist back then, so it would be illogical to claim that all Indo-European belong to the same civilisation.

Historians usually talk of Babylonian, Assyrian, Phoenician, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman civilisations, clearly distinguishing each entity, even if they were relatively close to their neighbour or predecessor. Yet we talk of a single European or Western civilisation (don't be fooled by Sid Meier's Civilization game series, there is no such thing as French, German or English civilisations).

In my opinion, Western civilisation and culture really emerged in the Renaissance. Europeans did inherit a lot from the ancient Greek and Romans, but so did the Arabs and the Ottomans. In fact, ancient Greek culture survived Roman rule, and Greek, not Latin, was the official language of the Byzantine Empire for over 1000 years. Before the Romans he Greeks/Macedonians under Alexander had conquered all the Middle East. So for most of ancient and medieval history, from 330 BCE to 1453 CE, the Eastern Mediterranean and a variable portion of West Asia was under Greek rule or Greek-language administration. The Greeks undeniably have a stronger historical presence in the Middle East than in the rest of Europe. Even after the Ottomans took over, Greece remained firmly inside the eastern Middle Eastern civilisation. 

I do not mean that modern Greeks, since they decided to split from the Ottoman Empire in 1821-32 have not since become more culturally European. In fact they were always European, but not 'Western' as their empire was an Eastern one (the terms Near East and Middle East match the borders of the Macedonian and Byzantine Empires). Therefore by definition ancient Greece and the Byzantine Empire cannot be considered Western. In fact, there was no concept of Westernness or Europeanness in ancient times. Germanics didn't feel like they shared anything in common with the Romans and vice versa. The Roman Empire was European, Middle Eastern and North African, not just European, and certainly not pan-European.

It is only during the Middle Ages that Europeans started to feel a sense of shared identity. Christianity played a unifying role in that regard. That process really started with the Muslim conquest of Iberia and the Viking invasions, two events that forced the Franks and their allies (English, Irish, North Spanish kingdoms) to stick together against their common ennemies. The Vikings originally felt completely separate from Christian Europe, but this changed afer they converted. The crusades, then the Ottoman conquest and their advances into the Balkans also reinforced the sense of unity among Christian Europeans. However, Western culture did not yet exist back then. The feeling was barely nascent. It would require the develomment of the set of values and ideals that were going to emerge from the Renaissance onward. That included rationalism, but in my opinion not democracy or capitalism, which are latter additions that didn't take root in all Europe until the second half of the 20th century. In fact, it could be argued that democracy is just an illusion, and that the Chinese were capitalist-minded long before the Europeans.

The constant intermarriages between European monarchies and the establishment of pan-European empires like that of the Habsburgs, which spanned across half of Europe, from Spain to Poland and from the Netherlands to Sicily, gave Europeans a new perspective on shared Europeanness. Even the King of England once owned nearly half of France, before unifying England with Scotland, and for a time with the Netherlands and Hannover. All European kingdoms became interlinked. More than anything else it is the emergence of a common culture among the European ruling class, essentially the aristocracy, with a lingua franca of their own (French from the Renaissance until the early 20th century, then English) that laid the grounds for Western culture. Culture, like language, is typically imposed by the elite on the rest of the population. Modern European languages have their roots in the dialects spoken by the ruling elite in each country during the Renaissance. Standard French language, for instance, is the Parisian dialect as psoken by the royal court that was eventually imposed on the whole country (although not until the advent of universal education and mass media). Modern Italian was modelled on the Florentine dialect, which was considered the most prestigious. Standard English evolved from the London dialect of the Renaissance.

So Western culture emerged during the Renaissance among the European elites and matured over the next few centuries, still mostly among the aristocracy and the bourgeoise. But it did not reach all the strata of the population until the 20th century, especially in remote rural areas. That is why people like the Amish, who cut themselves off from the rest of society in the 18th century, are only partially Western. On the other hand, a number of countries that were not traditionally Western, such as Japan, Korea, the Philippines, or to a lower extent Turkey, are becoming increasingly Westernised. Since culture can be acquired and is not linked to ethnicity, it is technically possible for any country to adopt Western ways and values. Japan was the first country in history to intentionally decided to replace a large part of its own culture and system by the Western one, including for clothing, political and economic systems, the adoption of western science and rationalism, etc. I summarised those changes here.

----------


## halfalp

Gutians is the new black... I'm Swiss, if you ask me what is western europe, europe civilization, western civilization, white civilization... I just dont know what to responde... I'm not proud has my ancient swiss pikemen fellas.

----------


## Minty

> Very interesting discussion. 
> 
> First, to answer Fire Haired's question, culture is never dependent on ethnicity. Culture is by definition acquired, and it is partly acquired through language. Therefore any American, whatever their ethnic background is culturally American. 
> 
> Western culture is derived from Western civilisation. The term 'Western' is a modern invention aimed at bringing together the cultures of European countries and their former colonies and to oppose them to other "Eastern" (from a Eurasian point of view) civilisations, be it in the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent or East Asia. The common issue with the definition of Western is where to place the geographic limit to that Western part of Eurasia. Should it include Russia, which is as eastern as the Middle East, and from the 18th century even expanded all the way to East Asia? In ancient and medieval times, the "Western world", for Europeans, also referred to the Western Roman empire, the Catholic sphere of influence, while the "Eastern world" referred to the Byzantine, the also Orthodox spheres of influence. This neat division between western and eastern Europe took on a renewed significance during the Cold War, when Europe was once again divided almost perfectly in the middle, but this time with Latin and Germanic countries in the western capitalist half, and mostly Slavic countries in the eastern communist half. It is these two historical divisions within Europe that are usually problematic in the definition of 'Western' culture or civilisation. Should it be Western as in Europe vs Asia, or Western as in Western Europe vs Eastern Europe? Both meanings have been used, but since the end of the cold war, the spread of capitalism (and of the EU) to former Eastern Bloc nations, Westernness now tends to extend to all Europe. Needless to say that politics plays a major role in how we decide to define Westernness.
> 
> 
> So what is Westernness and when did it really emerge? 
> 
> ...


You never mentioned Singapore or Hong Kong. They were colonized by the British for many years. HK 99 years, Singapore 133 years. Then there is also Macau. In 1999, Portuguese colonial rule over Macau ends after 442 years. Japan was one of the only Asian countries to escape Western colonization, becoming a colonizing power itself in the region. As the country fought against foreign influence and intrusion, only the Dutch and Chinese managed to set up trading ports in Japan, despite the efforts of other nations. Japan, for its part, set up spheres of influence in the surrounding islands, as well as in Korea, Taiwan, and South Sakhalin. 

Singapore and Hong Kong used to be the transit ports for the trades of the Great Britain and thus had become members of international English trading network. And later Hong Kong has become the financial centre of investment banks, while Singapore has been developing into the biggest private banking centre in Asia. Both attract many expats by their similarity to the Western lifestyle. There are a lot of Hong Kongers and Singaporeans using English names. If you go to Japan, you won't see many Japanese calling themselves or naming their children Michael, Kate, Jessica, William etc.

Having said that, Singapore is significantly more western, because the prevalence of English in HK has declined since 1997, while in Singapore you never really feel lost as an English speaker. This is also apparent in their education systems. Many of the more Anglicised Hong Kongers left before the handover. Singapore better represents a westernised country in Asia while HK is more Chinese. Macau is like HK.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Thanks Maciamo!

----------


## Boreas

> Western culture is derived from Western civilisation. The term 'Western' is a modern invention aimed at bringing together the cultures of European countries and their former colonies and to oppose them to other "Eastern" (from a Eurasian point of view) civilisations, be it in the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent or East Asia. The common issue with the definition of Western is where to place the geographic limit to that Western part of Eurasia. Should it include Russia, which is as eastern as the Middle East, and from the 18th century even expanded all the way to East Asia? In ancient and medieval times, the "Western world", for Europeans, also referred to the Western Roman empire, the Catholic sphere of influence, while the "Eastern world" referred to the Byzantine, the also Orthodox spheres of influence. This neat division between western and eastern Europe took on a renewed significance during the Cold War, when Europe was once again divided almost perfectly in the middle, but this time with Latin and Germanic countries in the western capitalist half, and mostly Slavic countries in the eastern communist half. It is these two historical divisions within Europe that are usually problematic in the definition of 'Western' culture or civilisation. Should it be Western as in Europe vs Asia, or Western as in Western Europe vs Eastern Europe? Both meanings have been used, but since the end of the cold war, the spread of capitalism (and of the EU) to former Eastern Bloc nations, Westernness now tends to extend to all Europe. Needless to say that politics plays a major role in how we decide to define Westernness.


It is still to early to put Eastern Europe in Western Category

Still many clear difference between East and West Europe. 

some example:
*Homophobia
*Living with family for young adults (it is very common in Balkan etc.)




> In my opinion, Western civilisation and culture really emerged in the Renaissance. Europeans did inherit a lot from the ancient Greek and Romans, but so did the Arabs and the Ottomans.


In my opinion, main part was the *Age of Enlightenment*, not Renaissance. Giving that much importance to Renaissance is just a romantism. Real impact was Enlightenment. Renaissance was just a catalyst as ancient Greeks

That's why still South Italy does not fit Western term

----------


## bicicleur

> It is still to early to put Eastern Europe in Western Category
> 
> Still many clear difference between East and West Europe. 
> 
> some example:
> *Homophobia
> *Living with family for young adults (it is very common in Balkan etc.)


before the fall of the Iron Curtain there was an obvious east-west divide in Europe

now I see a steady evolution in the northern half of Eastern Europe gradually erasing that divide
I think the divide north-south will become more pronounced than the east-west divide in Europe

----------


## bicicleur

> In my opinion, main part was the *Age of Enlightenment*, not Renaissance. Giving that much importance to Renaissance is just a romantism. Real impact was Enlightenment. Renaissance was just a catalyst as ancient Greeks
> 
> That's why still South Italy does not fit Western term



I agree.
Both Enlightenment and Renaissance were a consequence of free thinking, forgetting religious and other dogmas.
But it is Enlightenment that made the lasting impact.
And also the Industrial Revolution is a very important element of the western civilization, the one with the biggest and most lasting impact worldwide. 
Industrial revolutions would not have been possible without Enlightenment.

----------


## bicicleur

> You never mentioned Singapore or Hong Kong. They were colonized by the British for many years. HK 99 years, Singapore 133 years. Then there is also Macau. In 1999, Portuguese colonial rule over Macau ends after 442 years. Japan was one of the only Asian countries to escape Western colonization, becoming a colonizing power itself in the region. As the country fought against foreign influence and intrusion, only the Dutch and Chinese managed to set up trading ports in Japan, despite the efforts of other nations. Japan, for its part, set up spheres of influence in the surrounding islands, as well as in Korea, Taiwan, and South Sakhalin. 
> 
> Singapore and Hong Kong used to be the transit ports for the trades of the Great Britain and thus had become members of international English trading network. And later Hong Kong has become the financial centre of investment banks, while Singapore has been developing into the biggest private banking centre in Asia. Both attract many expats by their similarity to the Western lifestyle. There are a lot of Hong Kongers and Singaporeans using English names. If you go to Japan, you won't see many Japanese calling themselves or naming their children Michael, Kate, Jessica, William etc.
> 
> Having said that, Singapore is significantly more western, because the prevalence of English in HK has declined since 1997, while in Singapore you never really feel lost as an English speaker. This is also apparent in their education systems. Many of the more Anglicised Hong Kongers left before the handover. Singapore better represents a westernised country in Asia while HK is more Chinese. Macau is like HK.


If I recall well Singapoorians are 80 % Chinese and 15 % Indian, but Singapoor is neither in China nor in India, which means those Chinese and Indians are not in their own country and already much more receptive to foreign cultures.
Their forefathers probalby came to Singapoor as traders.

It's a long time ago I've been in Japan and somewhat more recent in China.
I have the impression that Japanese are much more attached to their own culture and identity while Chinese are more prepared to learn and accept other cultures and even learn other languages. That is probably because the Chinese have lost more of their identity through the history and the decay of the Chinese empire the last few centuries. I think the Chinese now have an advantage over the Japanese in this way.

----------


## Minty

> If I recall well Singapoorians are 80 % Chinese and 15 % Indian, but Singapoor is neither in China nor in India, which means those Chinese and Indians are not in their own country and already much more receptive to foreign cultures.
> Their forefathers probalby came to Singapoor as traders.
> 
> It's a long time ago I've been in Japan and somewhat more recent in China.
> I have the impression that Japanese are much more attached to their own culture and identity while Chinese are more prepared to learn and accept other cultures and even learn other languages. That is probably because the Chinese have lost more of their identity through the history and the decay of the Chinese empire the last few centuries. I think the Chinese now have an advantage over the Japanese in this way.


Singapore is a multiracial and multicultural country with ethnic Chinese (74.1% of the resident population), indigenous Malays (13.4%), and ethnic Indians (9.2%) making up the majority of the population. There are also Eurasians in Singapore. The Malays are recognized as the indigenous community.

Ethnic groups of Japan. Though it is said that Ethnic Japanese make up 98.5% of the total population and that the rest are Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%, in fact these numbers are not known.

China's ethnic make up is much more complicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...roups_in_China

Well, thank you for your comments. You seem to have noticed some kind of changes in China. I am not so fond of China even though I am Chinese by origins. This is why I married an European. I am a separatist. I support the independence of Taiwan.

I don't want the traditional font to disappear because that will cause a huge problem in archaeology studies.

However, I do feel happy if China is willing to open up and change their attitude and willing to learn. I think it is a good thing for everybody, this is because China is an important country in the world. After all, China’s economy is on track to become the world’s biggest, and even if its growth slows, it will still outpace that of the United States for many years.

I do benefit somehow in the job I do because of the rise of China, they are everywhere in France and other European countries now and it creates more job opportunities for people like me.

----------


## Maciamo

> You never mentioned Singapore or Hong Kong. They were colonized by the British for many years. HK 99 years, Singapore 133 years. Then there is also Macau. In 1999, Portuguese colonial rule over Macau ends after 442 years. Japan was one of the only Asian countries to escape Western colonization, becoming a colonizing power itself in the region. As the country fought against foreign influence and intrusion, only the Dutch and Chinese managed to set up trading ports in Japan, despite the efforts of other nations. Japan, for its part, set up spheres of influence in the surrounding islands, as well as in Korea, Taiwan, and South Sakhalin.
> 
> Singapore and Hong Kong used to be the transit ports for the trades of the Great Britain and thus had become members of international English trading network. And later Hong Kong has become the financial centre of investment banks, while Singapore has been developing into the biggest private banking centre in Asia. Both attract many expats by their similarity to the Western lifestyle. There are a lot of Hong Kongers and Singaporeans using English names. If you go to Japan, you won't see many Japanese calling themselves or naming their children Michael, Kate, Jessica, William etc.
> 
> Having said that, Singapore is significantly more western, because the prevalence of English in HK has declined since 1997, while in Singapore you never really feel lost as an English speaker. This is also apparent in their education systems. Many of the more Anglicised Hong Kongers left before the handover. Singapore better represents a westernised country in Asia while HK is more Chinese. Macau is like HK.


The situation of colonies is very different. Western culture was imposed on them by the colonists. Actually Hong Kong and even more so Singapore are special cases within colonies, because these are cities that were founded and developed by the British on islands as enclaves outside any existing country and culture. Hong Kong being geographically in China, its population was obviously overwhelmingly Chinese and became a hybrid of Chinese and British cultures. Hybrid of a Western and non-Western cultures aren't really the same as a Westernised country. Think of it in terms of people. If a child has a British father and a Chinese mother, he or she is both British and Chinese at every level (politically, culturally, genetically). But if a Chinese citizen emigrates from China to the UK, he or she has to adopt Western culture, which is completely foreign, and becomes a Westernised Chinese. Of course, there weren't so many interracial marriages in HK and Singapore, but culturally the two city-states can be seen as marriages between British and Chinese culture (+ Tamil and Malay in Singapore). Singapore, and nearby British colonies built on the same pattern like Malacca and Penang (which I all visited by the way) were designed as international trading ports and from the start had a multicultural vocation. Isolated cities aren't civilisations on their own. In fact, I have been arguing that Western Civilisation transcends national borders. It is undeniable that Singapore and Hong Kong were built by Westerners based on a western system, but that they were cultural hybrids from the start and still are. Hybrids are good. It means that they can benefit from two or more different cultures and civilisations. When you mention Chinese Singaporians taking English given names with their Chinese surname, that's an example of hybridism. Japanese people never do that.

Japan is a very different case and I chose it as an example exactly because it was never colonised, but nevertheless decided to throw away a big part of its traditional culture, which had remained pure and uninterrupted for over a thousand years (since they imported Chinese characters, Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism in the 5-6th century) to replace it with imported Western ways. What is really telling with the Japanese is that they did not import the culture or system of one particular Western country. It's not like Singapore or HK which are based only on British culture, or Macau only on Portuguese culture. No. After Commodore Perry and his black ships forced Japan to open its ports to trade with America in 1853, you could have expected the Japanese to react like: "Oh those Americans have become militarily superior to us. They have big guns while we still fight with swords. We must get the same weapons to protect our country and culture". That didn't happen. What they said was: "Those Western powers have overtaken us on so many levels. Their culture and system is superior to ours. We must send people to the USA, Britain, France and Germany to study carefully their military, political, economic and education systems, choose the best of each for us, throw away our beloved kimono and geta, cut our men's hair knots, adopt the Western calendar, the metric system, get rid of our samurai class altogether, make railways, and so on, and so on." That change came from inside. It wasn't forced on them. No other country in the world at the time had ever attempted to change so radically their ways by importing a complete foreign culture and system. And it all took place in just a few years. This is why Japan can really said to have become a Westernised country. They decided on their own to change their culture, and they didn't see Western countries individually but as part of a unified Western culture and civilisation.

After WWII, Japan was occupied by the Americans and their political and educational system was redesigned by the Americans based on the US model. Japan also become increasingly Americanised culturally - so much in fact that it is often referred by Western expats jokingly as the 51st US State. The Japanese's love of baseball is unmatched outside North America. I discovered a whole range of American shops that I had never seen or heard of in Europe by living in Japan: Denny's, Subway's, Wendy's, Sizzler, El Torito, TGI Friday's, Seatlle's Best Coffee, and the culture of conveniences stores (7 Eleven, AmPm, Circle K). Since 1945, Japanese language has become so anglicised that elderly people cannot understand younger generations anymore. There are hundreds of new English words replacing perfectly good Japanese ones every year, so that Japanese now sounds more like a créole language. As a Japanese speaker raised with the French attitude to language purity, I don't like it and always try to use the real Japanese word. When I hear Japanese people use an English word in Japanese and don't know the original Japanese, I make a point in asking them for it, but half of the time they think hard and can't even come with the real Japanese translation anymore (or they need to look it up).

----------


## Maciamo

> It is still to early to put Eastern Europe in Western Category
> 
> Still many clear difference between East and West Europe. 
> 
> some example:
> *Homophobia
> *Living with family for young adults (it is very common in Balkan etc.)


Homophobia was the norm in Western Europe a few decades ago, yet there is no doubt that Western culture already existed back then. 

As for young adults living with their family, that's very common in Italy and Spain, and I recently read that an increasing number of Brits are doing it too because of the rising costs of university. That has nothing to do with how one defines Western civilisation. 




> In my opinion, main part was the *Age of Enlightenment*, not Renaissance. Giving that much importance to Renaissance is just a romantism. Real impact was Enlightenment. Renaissance was just a catalyst as ancient Greeks
> 
> That's why still South Italy does not fit Western term


By Renaissance I meant Renaissance + Enlightenment. The Enlightenment can be seen as the culmination of the rational ideals of the Renaissance, such as individual thinking priming over the traditional teachings of the Church. But the Enlightenment was not as far reaching geographically. It was essentially a French, British and German phenomenon (+ North Italy and the Netherlands to some extent). It is really in France that it had the biggest impact on the fabric of society and local culture as it led to the French Revolution, which is a complete rejection of the Church and the divine rights of monarchy. In other countries, the Enlightenment was 'contained' within the upper classes, so that the people didn't revolt by thinking too much.

----------


## Yetos

> As for young adults living with their family, that's very common in Italy and Spain, and I recently read that an increasing number of Brits are doing it too because of the rising costs of university. That has nothing to do with how one defines Western civilisation.


at Greece and Balkans it is almost a must,
and the oposite.
very old accomodated by their children or grand kids,

that is family,

today with crisis,
more than 50% who are unemployed, and under 30 live with parents,
and more than 50% that are above 75 live with their children,
that is the reason Greek love big houses at villages and towns,

this is an 'non papper rule' an unwritten law,
the first born male takes the bigger heritage, but it is obliged for life time to watch after parents,
it is called ΧΡΕΟΣ (obligation own)

I and my family, live with my parents, and that obligation, *stop me* to go abroad for work (Arabia, Korea,) or further studies (Scotland and Denmark),

----------


## Minty

> The situation of colonies is very different. Western culture was imposed on them by the colonists. Actually Hong Kong and even more so Singapore are special cases within colonies, because these are cities that were founded and developed by the British on islands as enclaves outside any existing country and culture. Hong Kong being geographically in China, its population was obviously overwhelmingly Chinese and became a hybrid of Chinese and British cultures. Hybrid of a Western and non-Western cultures aren't really the same as a Westernised country. Think of it in terms of people. If a child has a British father and a Chinese mother, he or she is both British and Chinese at every level (politically, culturally, genetically). But if a Chinese citizen emigrates from China to the UK, he or she has to adopt Western culture, which is completely foreign, and becomes a Westernised Chinese. Of course, there weren't so many interracial marriages in HK and Singapore, but culturally the two city-states can be seen as marriages between British and Chinese culture (+ Tamil and Malay in Singapore). Singapore, and nearby British colonies built on the same pattern like Malacca and Penang (which I all visited by the way) were designed as international trading ports and from the start had a multicultural vocation. Isolated cities aren't civilisations on their own. In fact, I have been arguing that Western Civilisation transcends national borders. It is undeniable that Singapore and Hong Kong were built by Westerners based on a western system, but that they were cultural hybrids from the start and still are. Hybrids are good. It means that they can benefit from two or more different cultures and civilisations. When you mention Chinese Singaporians taking English given names with their Chinese surname, that's an example of hybridism. Japanese people never do that.
> 
> Japan is a very different case and I chose it as an example exactly because it was never colonised, but nevertheless decided to throw away a big part of its traditional culture, which had remained pure and uninterrupted for over a thousand years (since they imported Chinese characters, Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism in the 5-6th century) to replace it with imported Western ways. What is really telling with the Japanese is that they did not import the culture or system of one particular Western country. It's not like Singapore or HK which are based only on British culture, or Macau only on Portuguese culture. No. After Commodore Perry and his black ships forced Japan to open its ports to trade with America in 1853, you could have expected the Japanese to react like: "Oh those Americans have become militarily superior to us. They have big guns while we still fight with swords. We must get the same weapons to protect our country and culture". That didn't happen. What they said was: "Those Western powers have overtaken us on so many levels. Their culture and system is superior to ours. We must send people to the USA, Britain, France and Germany to study carefully their military, political, economic and education systems, choose the best of each for us, throw away our beloved kimono and geta, cut our men's hair knots, adopt the Western calendar, the metric system, get rid of our samurai class altogether, make railways, and so on, and so on." That change came from inside. It wasn't forced on them. No other country in the world at the time had ever attempted to change so radically their ways by importing a complete foreign culture and system. And it all took place in just a few years. This is why Japan can really said to have become a Westernised country. They decided on their own to change their culture, and they didn't see Western countries individually but as part of a unified Western culture and civilisation.
> 
> After WWII, Japan was occupied by the Americans and their political and educational system was redesigned by the Americans based on the US model. Japan also become increasingly Americanised culturally - so much in fact that it is often referred by Western expats jokingly as the 51st US State. The Japanese's love of baseball is unmatched outside North America. I discovered a whole range of American shops that I had never seen or heard of in Europe by living in Japan: Denny's, Subway's, Wendy's, Sizzler, El Torito, TGI Friday's, Seatlle's Best Coffee, and the culture of conveniences stores (7 Eleven, AmPm, Circle K). Since 1945, Japanese language has become so anglicised that elderly people cannot understand younger generations anymore. There are hundreds of new English words replacing perfectly good Japanese ones every year, so that Japanese now sounds more like a créole language. As a Japanese speaker raised with the French attitude to language purity, I don't like it and always try to use the real Japanese word. When I hear Japanese people use an English word in Japanese and don't know the original Japanese, I make a point in asking them for it, but half of the time they think hard and can't even come with the real Japanese translation anymore (or they need to look it up).


Hi Maciamo, thanks for your reply. I always find your ideas very interesting, whether I agree with them or not.

The term westernization refers to the conversion to or adoption of Western traditions and customs. This very broad definition reveals that westernization can mean different things to different nations and cultures. However, in the current global context, the term westernization refers to the proliferation of social, economic and political ideas that is typically associated with wealthy countries of North America and Western Europe.

The traditions and customs that are associated with Western values have been aggregated from different cultures and nations throughout history. The majority of the basic social and cultural values of Western nations have roots in the European tradition, such as religious beliefs and cultural celebrations. Much of the economic and political philosophies are adopted from the more recent founding principles of the United States of America.

In today's context, westernization refers to the widespread presence and adoption of these customs and traditions and standardization of these customs and traditions to the point that they are expected to be found everywhere. For example, the widespread use of the English language in business and professional interactions reveals a tenet of westernization. Other examples include finding McDonald's restaurants in foreign nations, Hollywood fashion abroad and liberal economic systems that privilege free markets.

From my understanding, the word westernization is not really associated with whether the western philosophies are imposed on a group of people or not. Rather, how well it is adopted by these group of people or nation.

----------


## Maciamo

> In today's context, westernization refers to the widespread presence and adoption of these customs and traditions and standardization of these customs and traditions to the point that they are expected to be found everywhere. For example, the widespread use of the English language in business and professional interactions reveals a tenet of westernization. Other examples include finding McDonald's restaurants in foreign nations, Hollywood fashion abroad and liberal economic systems that privilege free markets.


You are confusing Westernisation with globalisation, capitalism and Americanisation. These are four different things. 

1) *Globalisation* is a recent phenomenon, which started really started in the 1990's when the USSR and the Eastern Block collapsed and China opened up to the rest of the world. This is when multinational companies based at first mostly in the US, Western Europe, Japan and Hong Kong, then also in Korea, Taiwan, China, India or wherever, started expanding their business in as many countries as possible. Among those companies are so American brands like McDonald's and Starbucks, but Asian companies like Toyota, Sony, Samsung, Lenovo, HTC, Acer, Haier and so on benefit just as much from globalisation. And this has nothing to do with Western culture, as it is a recent phenomenon that applies equally to any country. 

2) *Capitalism*, as I have explained in my first post above, is just one of many economic systems that have been tried in Western countries. It has existed since the Middle Ages but only really got kickstarted with the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. Capitalism is especially associated with the UK and former British colonies like the USA and Australia. It is of course practised in the rest of Europe too, but in a more restrained and regulated manner, and was adopted very late by the eastern half of Europe or even countries like Spain and Portugal (which were military dictatorships until the 1970's). Nowadays China is perhaps the most fervently capitalist country in Eurasia, so it's not really a Western thing, considering that China is nowhere nearly as Westernised as Japan.

3) Many East Asians confuse *Americanisation* with Westernisation because the US is so much more influential in East Asia than European countries (in part due to its strong military presence since the end of WWII). But I can assure you that the popping up of McDonald's and Starbucks is merely an Americanisation of society. It is usually resisted by many Europeans, including in Belgium, France and Italy. Starbucks was absent from Belgium until 3 years ago and even today only has a few shops in strategic tourist spots (airport, central station). Starbucks still doesn't have any branch in Italy, although the first is due to open in Milan soon. In comparison Japan has over 1000 Starbucks, and South Korea over 650 (more than any European country except the UK). France has only about 100, less than the United Arab Emirates and about the same as Hong Kong! 

Until a few years ago there were only two McDonald's in Brussels (the very multicultural EU capital, with a day-time population of 3 million). Now there are five. Belgium has one of the lowest number of McDonald's per capita in the developed world. Malaysia has 12x more McDonald's _per capita_ than Belgium. Spain and Italy together have less McDonald's than Australia. Japan has 3,000 of them, more than any country except the USA. Canada has more McDonald's than the UK or France, who have 3x larger populations. All that is telling us is that Canada, Australia and many East Asian countries are more Americanised than European countries. Yet the core of Western civilisation is in Western Europe. The USA is just a recent offshoot. 

The USA is also not the paradigm of Western culture. It has too many religious wackos for that, whose values are completely at odds with those of the Renaissance Humanism and the Enlightenment. America has its own culture, which derives from Western culture, but is not the model for it.

----------


## Boreas

> Homophobia was the norm in Western Europe a few decades ago, yet there is no doubt that Western culture already existed back then. 
> 
> As for young adults living with their family, that's very common in Italy and Spain, and I recently read that an increasing number of Brits are doing it too because of the rising costs of university. That has nothing to do with how one defines Western civilisation.


No one can clearly define civilisation or built walls between each one of them. 

There is significant different between East&West also South&North in Europe. Those are just samples. Borders are not like a line, but people should be dump to not feel it.



I guess Brussel is excelent choice to be capital of EU. Otherwise, if all Europe was a single civilisation as West Civilisation, Vienna or South Germany Would be better place to be a capital.





> By Renaissance I meant Renaissance + Enlightenment. The Enlightenment can be seen as the culmination of the rational ideals of the Renaissance, such as individual thinking priming over the traditional teachings of the Church. But the Enlightenment was not as far reaching geographically. It was essentially a French, British and German phenomenon (+ North Italy and the Netherlands to some extent). It is really in France that it had the biggest impact on the fabric of society and local culture as it led to the French Revolution, which is a complete rejection of the Church and the divine rights of monarchy. In other countries, the Enlightenment was 'contained' within the upper classes, so that the people didn't revolt by thinking too much.


As I said, I don't take Renaissance. Of course it effected Enlightenment. But all history is a chain. Why I would take in Renaissance but I would take out events which are the reason of Renaissance? There is no end in this logic. 

also now, there is another cultural shaping going on around real West, which is about migrants: Germany-France-UK-Belgium-Netherland-Austria. Not all part of Europe Peninsula sharing same heritage.

----------


## Minty

> You are confusing Westernisation with globalisation, capitalism and Americanisation. These are four different things. 
> 
> 1) *Globalisation* is a recent phenomenon, which started really started in the 1990's when the USSR and the Eastern Block collapsed and China opened up to the rest of the world. This is when multinational companies based at first mostly in the US, Western Europe, Japan and Hong Kong, then also in Korea, Taiwan, China, India or wherever, started expanding their business in as many countries as possible. Among those companies are so American brands like McDonald's and Starbucks, but Asian companies like Toyota, Sony, Samsung, Lenovo, HTC, Acer, Haier and so on benefit just as much from globalisation. And this has nothing to do with Western culture, as it is a recent phenomenon that applies equally to any country. 
> 
> 2) *Capitalism*, as I have explained in my first post above, is just one of many economic systems that have been tried in Western countries. It has existed since the Middle Ages but only really got kickstarted with the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. Capitalism is especially associated with the UK and former British colonies like the USA and Australia. It is of course practised in the rest of Europe too, but in a more restrained and regulated manner, and was adopted very late by the eastern half of Europe or even countries like Spain and Portugal (which were military dictatorships until the 1970's). Nowadays China is perhaps the most fervently capitalist country in Eurasia, so it's not really a Western thing, considering that China is nowhere nearly as Westernised as Japan.
> 
> 3) Many East Asians confuse *Americanisation* with Westernisation because the US is so much more influential in East Asia than European countries (in part due to its strong military presence since the end of WWII). But I can assure you that the popping up of McDonald's and Starbucks is merely an Americanisation of society. It is usually resisted by many Europeans, including in Belgium, France and Italy. Starbucks was absent from Belgium until 3 years ago and even today only has a few shops in strategic tourist spots (airport, central station). Starbucks still doesn't have any branch in Italy, although the first is due to open in Milan soon. In comparison Japan has over 1000 Starbucks, and South Korea over 650 (more than any European country except the UK). France has only about 100, less than the United Arab Emirates and about the same as Hong Kong! 
> 
> Until a few years ago there were only two McDonald's in Brussels (the very multicultural EU capital, with a day-time population of 3 million). Now there are five. Belgium has one of the lowest number of McDonald's per capita in the developed world. Malaysia has 12x more McDonald's _per capita_ than Belgium. Spain and Italy together have less McDonald's than Australia. Japan has 3,000 of them, more than any country except the USA. Canada has more McDonald's than the UK or France, who have 3x larger populations. All that is telling us is that Canada, Australia and many East Asian countries are more Americanised than European countries. Yet the core of Western civilisation is in Western Europe. The USA is just a recent offshoot. 
> ...



Hmmm, interesting explanation. Japan's success in modernization has created great interest in why and how it was able to adopt Western political, social, and economic institutions in so short a time, One answer is found in the Meiji Restoration itself. This political revolution "restored" the emperor to power, but he did not rule directly. He was expected to accept the advice of the group that had overthrown the shôgun, and it was from this group that a small number of ambitious, able, and patriotic young men from the lower ranks of the samurai emerged to take control and establish the new political system. At first, their only strength was that the emperor accepted their advice and several powerful feudal domains provided military support. They moved quickly, however, to build their own military and economic control. By July 1869 the feudal lords had been requested to give up their domains, and in 1871 these domains were abolished and transformed into prefectures of a unified central state.

The feudal lords and the samurai class were offered a yearly stipend, which was later changed to a one-time payment in government bonds. The samurai lost their class privileges, when the government declared all classes to be equal. By 1876 the government banned the wearing of the samurai's swords; the former samurai cut off their top knots in favor of Western-style haircuts and took up jobs in business and the professions.

The armies of each domain were disbanded, and a national army based on universal conscription was created in 1872, requiring three years' military service from all men, samurai and commoner alike. A national land tax system was established that required payment in money instead of rice, which allowed the government to stabilize the national budget. This gave the government money to spend to build up the strength of the nation.

So this is all thanks to their Emperor of Japan at that time, whose name was Meiji. Having said that, in fact it was his "advisers," the small group of men who exercised political control, that devised and carried out the reform program in the name of the emperor. So the Japanese should thanked those advisers that made them the first Asian country to be westernized!

During this period, China on the other hand had an emperor who was skinny, sickly, and terrified of the dowager empress. Empress dowager, his manipulative Aunt did not like foreigners! Not to mention that the Dynasty that was in charged of China at that period was ruled by the Manchurians. Manchurians are not the real Chinese. Guangxu Emperor was the Emperor of this period in China, ever after the Guangxu Emperor began formal rule, Empress Dowager Cixi his aunt continued to influence his decisions and actions. She was a manipulative and old fashioned women. Cixi had sharp political sense and implemented decisively; but under her rule the Qing Dynasty grew more and more corrupt and its power began to dwindle.

Dowager Cixi was born on the 29th November 1835, the daughter of an ordinary official. Her Manchu name was Yehonala, which originated from the combined name of two tribes, Yeho and Nala. [Editor's note It is now thought that this is not correct. Manchu names have two elements the clan and tribe names. Yehe was her clan name. Nala (aka Nara) was her tribe name. Hence Yehenara] Her father died when she was very young. As the eldest child, she felt mistreated, neglected and unloved. She once said 'Ever since I was a young girl, I had a very hard life. I was not happy with my parents, as I was not a favourite. My sisters had everything they wanted, while I was, to a great extent, ignored altogether.' At the age of fourteen, she was nominated as a candidate-concubine. It was both an honour for her, and also a chance to escape from the misery she felt at her family home. At sixteen, she was chosen to be one of the concubines to Emperor Xianfeng, and on turning eighteen, she completed the ritual preparations necessary to become a royal concubine. Even during her early years, Cixi proved to be strong-willed. Her unhappy and competitive childhood inspired her determination to rise above her peers and head towards her dream of prowess.

Emperor Xianfeng had many wives and concubines, but it was only Cixi who bore a son. After his birth she was soon raised in rank from a third-level concubine to a first-level one. When her son turned one, Cixi became a secondary consort - one of the emperor's wives. Cixi was now called the Empress of the Western Palace. And the emperor trusted her judgement and consulted her constantly on affairs of state.

However, Emperor Xianfeng died in 1861 at the age of 30. His primary wife, Cixi's cousin Ci An, had a daughter, but no sons. Therefore Cixi's five year old son Tongzhi became the emperor. From then her greed for power became insatiable and finally in 1865 she seized the throne, removing another faction from the helm of politics. She was a strong ruler and put down the rebellions which endlessly threatened her. During her years in power, the Western nations gained great influence in China. Many people thought that the best way to stop the outsiders from taking over completely was to strengthen China with modern inventions like trains and telegraphs. However, Empress Cixi and her advisors were conservative and resisted these changes.

The empress usually put her own interests ahead of the nation's. She squandered money on banquets, jewels, and other luxuries. She liked, for example, to be served 150 different dishes at a single banquet. She drank from a jade cup and ate with golden chopsticks. She used Navy funds to build herself a lavish summer palace. At the end of her life, her personal jewellery vault held 3,000 ebony boxes of jewels. She also let financial corruption run rampant in the Forbidden City.

Her son, Tongzhi, by the age of 15 was drinking heavily and consorting with female prostitutes. At the age of 16, he married Alute (Xiao Che), the daughter of a Manchu nobleman. Cixi is said to have been fearful that Alute would undermine her authority over Tongzhi. In order to prevent this and to keep Tongzhi busy so that she could continue to rule in his son's name, she allegedly encouraged her son to keep concubines. Eventually the young emperor contracted smallpox. After a seeming recovery, he suddenly died - possibly from venereal disease. Soon after her husband's death, Alute committed suicide by swallowing opium. It was rumoured that Cixi had driven her to it. Whatever the reason, Tongzhi had died and left no child to inherit the throne. Determined to maintain her power, Empress Cixi chose the new emperor - her own nephew - Guangxu, aged three years old, and who was not in direct line of succession to the throne.

When he turned 17 in 1889, Cixi surrendered her power to him, in theory. She retired to her summer palace, six miles away from the Forbidden City. From there she spread rumours that the emperor was childlike and incompetent. 

The young emperor did have a mind of his own and he started listening to people who, unlike Cixi, were in favour of westernizing China. In 1889, the emperor Guangxu, initiated his famous 'Hundred Days of Reform'. He issued decrees ordering the building of railroads; the modernisation of the military; reform of the legal system, and so forth. He also dismissed hundreds of Manchu officials who opposed his reforms. Cixi was outraged by these changes; she cleverly bided her time and allowed the emperor to make enemies among the Manchu elite.

Cixi put an end to the Guangxu Emperor policies for modernisation.

We had emperors and a woman emperor who were open minded but not during that time. It was much earlier on in history, during the Tang Dynasty.

So you see, if our Tang dynasty was in the same period as the Japanese Meiji era, the history would be extremely different today. Japanese are only more westernized than Chinese because the open minded rulers were right there at the right time.

----------


## Maciamo

> No one can clearly define civilisation or built walls between each one of them. 
> 
> There is significant different between East&West also South&North in Europe. Those are just samples. Borders are not like a line, but people should be dump to not feel it.


There are as much differences between Northern vs Southern Europe as between Western vs Eastern Europe. It all boils down to the ethnic and historic divides between Germanic, Latin/Celtic and Balto-Slavic countries. Even religious divides of the Renaissance follow those ethnic lines.






> As I said, I don't take Renaissance. Of course it effected Enlightenment. But all history is a chain. Why I would take in Renaissance but I would take out events which are the reason of Renaissance? There is no end in this logic.


Yes, there is logic because the Renaissance was a clear break with the past, with Medieval Europe. Europeans started to doubt and reconsider the teachings of the Church and to replace it with rational thinking. When Luther rejected the abuses of the Catholic Church, he was using reason to reject the values of Medieval Europe. Many people imagine the Renaissance to be about fine paintings and sculptures in Tuscany and the Low Countries, but it is a much broader revolution in thinking, a rebirth of ancient Greco-Roman philosophy (against Judeo-Christian dogma) and the start of the scientific revolution (with Copernicus, Galileo, etc.). The Enlightenment is just the culmination of the Renaissance. It is not even a separate historical period.




> also now, there is another cultural shaping going on around real West, which is about migrants: Germany-France-UK-Belgium-Netherland-Austria. Not all part of Europe Peninsula sharing same heritage.


This entity is what could be described as Greater Frankia. Add Switzerland, Catalonia and northern Italy and it corresponds to the Charlemagne's Empire + Britain, which were close allies (Charlemagne's 12 peers at his Palatine court included Alcuin of York, and the emperor kept close relations with Kings Egbert of Wessex and Offa of Mercia). All these countries or regions are ethnically speaking a blend of Italo-Celtic and Germanic people. Scandinavia stands out as more purely Germanic. Most of Iberia and South Italy are rather Italo-Celtic + Near Eastern, with only a little bit of Germanic. So ethnically, the countries (Frankia + Britain) that would become the core of Western civilisation emerged during the Early Middle Ages, around the time of Charlemagne, a few centuries after Germanic invaders mixed with the local Gallo-Roman (or Romano-British) populations.

----------


## Boreas

> There are as much differences between Northern vs Southern Europe as between Western vs Eastern Europe. It all boils down to the ethnic and historic divides between Germanic, Latin/Celtic and Balto-Slavic countries. Even religious divides of the Renaissance follow those ethnic lines.


It is good that, I took your attention about difference in Europe





> Yes, there is logic because the Renaissance was a clear break with the past, with Medieval Europe. Europeans started to doubt and reconsider the teachings of the Church and to replace it with rational thinking. When Luther rejected the abuses of the Catholic Church, he was using reason to reject the values of Medieval Europe. Many people imagine the Renaissance to be about fine paintings and sculptures in Tuscany and the Low Countries, but it is a much broader revolution in thinking, a rebirth of ancient Greco-Roman philosophy (against Judeo-Christian dogma) and the start of the scientific revolution (with Copernicus, Galileo, etc.). The Enlightenment is just the culmination of the Renaissance. It is not even a separate historical period.


Clear Break ? This is what people said a century ago  :Grin: 

As I said before, if the Renaissance was the core peices of Western Civilisation, scientific revolution or reform would begin in there. There should be other factors. I don't deny that renaissance which began in Italy, fed the scientific revolution in West, but as I explain, it is not enough.

"It is not even a separate historical period." ???
It was totally subjective issue. Neither you can disprove my idea nor I can do yours with this way.

Sample: What is the begining of modern period?
The Fall of Constantinople in 1453, with the Renaissance period, 
The Age of Discovery (especially with the voyages of Christopher Columbus beginning in 1492, but also with Vasco da Gama's discovery of the sea route to the East in 1498), and ending around the French Revolution in 1789.

1453, 1492, 1498  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:  As you see, very subjective.

----------


## Maciamo

> Clear Break ? This is what people said a century ago


What are you talking about? 




> "It is not even a separate historical period." ???
> It was totally subjective issue. Neither you can disprove my idea nor I can do yours with this way.


It is not totally subjective. Historians have standards on which they agree. So it's partially subjective.




> Sample: What is the begining of modern period?
> The Fall of Constantinople in 1453, with the Renaissance period, 
> The Age of Discovery (especially with the voyages of Christopher Columbus beginning in 1492, but also with Vasco da Gama's discovery of the sea route to the East in 1498), and ending around the French Revolution in 1789.
> 
> 1453, 1492, 1498  As you see, very subjective.


Why do you need a fixed date for the start of the Renaissance. That's ridiculous because the Renaissance didn't start at the same time in all regions at once. And it didn't start at the same time for science, philosophy/religion, arts or technologies (gunpowder, printing press, ocean-going ships). The earliest development of what is associated with the Renaissance started with the arts in Tuscany in the late 14th century. It took about 150 years for the Early Renaissance to emerge and spread around Europe. We can say that by the mid 16th century the Renaissance was well under way in most of Europe (but not everywhere). It's important to understand that the ideas of the Renaissance propagated first to major cities, royal courts and the like, and last to the remote countryside. Even in France, which is at the heart of Western Europe and had a particularly flourishing Renaissance culture (Loire Valley Castles, Montaigne, Descartes, School of Fontainebleau, etc.), the ideas of the Renaissance were still largely unknown in rural mountain areas of Auvergne or the Pyrennees as late as the early 20th century, where people had a lifestyle that differed little from their medieval ancestors.

----------


## Sile

> Sample: What is the begining of modern period?
> The Fall of Constantinople in 1453, with the Renaissance period, 
> The Age of Discovery (especially with the voyages of Christopher Columbus beginning in 1492, but also with Vasco da Gama's discovery of the sea route to the East in 1498), and ending around the French Revolution in 1789.
> 
> 1453, 1492, 1498  As you see, very subjective.


IMO, Beginning of modern period can only be from the creation of nationhood ....~1750 - 1780 ............maybe the American revolution period was the start .............

For Europe it would be ~1840 onwards ..............the many many revolutions all across Europe

----------


## Boreas

> What are you talking about?


I don't want to find clear date. the point was its subjectivity. As you agreed (partly  :Good Job: ) 

Similary,

You may not see Enligntment as a age/era. But people exist who see it.





> IMO, Beginning of modern period can only be from the creation of nationhood ....~1750 - 1780 ............maybe the American revolution period was the start .............
> 
> 
> For Europe it would be ~1840 onwards ..............the many many revolutions all across Europe


Another great sample for its subjectivity. 

You are pasting the Age of Discovery and put the begining of the Modern period between 1750-1840 which usually called as late-modern period. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history

----------


## Sile

> I don't want to find clear date. the point was its subjectivity. As you agreed (partly ) 
> 
> Similary,
> 
> You may not see Enligntment as a age/era. But people exist who see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no not with age of discovery, to be exact it is the end of Church and King system and beginning of nationhood ...................the quicker we eliminate both the better man will be

----------


## Seanp

From a more broad aspect of view Western culture can cover not only Europe but a good portion of the Near East and regions which has been colonized by people of West Eurasian descent. From the Neolithic to the appear of Jesus the core of the Western world was in the Middle East/East Mediterranean regions then this core had moved to Rome/Central Mediterranean including shores of North Africa and Southwest Europe. 
Western civilization did born outside Europe, but today the so called West is being associated with Christianity and technological revolution which is not the case in my opinion. 

There's no such thing as homogeneous European culture, because without the cultural influence of the Near East it wouldn't be exist as well as there's no strict homogeneous Near Eastern culture
Hellenes, the so called founders of Western civilization just copy pasted most knowledge from Mesopotamia, Egypt and other brother states around the Eastern Mediterranean while the term "Europe" was used by Phoenicians for the first time. 
It should be more interesting to see the significant impact of Freemasons on modern European cultural values, because the way we can talk about such thing as Europe as a state and a relatively homogeneous cultural-economical community was created by influential members of certain secret societies as well as the impact made by Judo-Christianity.

----------


## Pratt

> The Western Civilization started in Greece, but the Hellenic Civilization started in the Northern Mesopotamia (among the Sumerians/Gutians of Kurdistan)...


Not really

----------


## Pratt

> Gutians is the new black... I'm Swiss, if you ask me what is western europe, europe civilization, western civilization, white civilization... I just dont know what to responde... I'm not proud has my ancient swiss pikemen fellas.



“In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love and five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock!”

―Orson Welles


Just kidding, but not so much. :)

----------


## Holdwin7

Hi! I am Holdwin7 a new member. I see the wisdom of presenting the definition of Western Civilization to give us a clearer picture of what it is - by Angela. I for one have been a student of Western Civilization - The measure of Western Civilization cannot be limited or minimized by using a political divide. It cannot be limited or minimized by one of its historical foundations. Western Civilization with all its imperfections, is the greatest civilization that has ever been on this planet. The extent and influence can be seen in every country; the majority of cities on earth; and the majority of people.

----------

