Talk:Western culture/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Genocide and atrocities by Western Europe

Would be it be considered relevant to add a section on the flow of resources and labor through imperialism, unfair treaties, and genocide (either through murder, disease, displacement or economic hardship). Exploitation and bigotry (racism, anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, persecution of homosexuals, religious conflict) should also be included.

None of the things mentioned above are exclusively the preserve of the West, so they are irrelevent. The purpose of this article is to list things that are largely unique to Western culture, not to list every single facet. Bigotry, genocide, imperialism, etc. have all happened in the non-Western world, so they should not be included.

Canislupisbarca (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, however, it seems though the authors of this article would like to claim that Western civilization was founded on democracy, freedom and human rights, while implying that non-Western cultures do not believe in these ideals. 99.229.163.64 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rationalism, Secularism and Enlightenment as opposed to traditional moral Catholicism and Protestant Christianity

The original was something like "Humanism, Secularism, Rationalism and Empiricism, as opposed to traditional Catholicism and Protestant Christianity", someone changed it by "Humanism, Secularism, Rationalism and Empiricism, as opposed to traditional Catholicism and Protestant Christianity", and think that's incomplete, and doesn't show the full nature and motivations of these tendence and movement, nowadays so influencial in our societies, and being an important factor of reducing any dependence from traditional religions, and Catholic and Protestant Christian moral, dochtrines and autorities, which plays an important role among free-thinking and scientist community and its develop and exchanging of new and revolutionary ideas. If there is a reason for someone to contradict this, or considere this wrong, please, state it here, exposing your reasons before completely changing what previously written, or, if you can, "add" or "contrast" new information, rather than erasing and misinforming the one stated. I've made some clarifications at the end of the statement, to clarify the point, and to avoid further doubts and polemics, so the final version, as I've left it, would be:

  1. Humanism, Secularism, Rationalism and Empiricism, as a way to oppose to traditional Catholicism and Protestant Christianity religious and moral dochtrines, that predominated in society, and become considered to be a limit, or obstacle, for free thinking and further developping or spreading of ideas.

signed DeepQuasar

Someone modified and set this: "Humanism, Secularism, Rationalism, Empiricism, in one hand, as well as traditional Catholicism and Protestant Christianity religious and moral doctrines, on the other. These new ideas may appeare to be in opposition later were partly adopted by church.". I've then again found it too vague or inexact, hiding the true spirit of the new ideas, and a endless debate or opposition from or toward the old ones, that had lasted until nowadays, of course, not making impossible for a part of them to merge, specially that critic or progressive sector into churches and religious communities; as well as a part of the new ideals supporters didn't got fully against the old ones (but another part did). I want to express such more complex situation, such duality, that have formed a part of our Western societies or culture, in a way or other, until nowadays. So, if you considere it valid, I add this, respecting the old puctualizations: "Humanism, Secularism, Rationalism, Empiricism, in one hand, as well as traditional Catholicism and Protestant Christianity religious and moral doctrines, on the other. These new ideas appeared in opposition to the religious and moral preeminent doctrines and lifestyle in society, setting the basis for a new critic attitude and open questioning toward them among various progressive sectors of society, favouring freethinking, questioning of Church as authority and its traditional immovilism, resulting into an open-minded and reformist spirit inside, through ideas such as Liberation Theology, that partly adopted these currents, and secular and political tendences such as Laicism, Agnosticism, Anti-confessionalism, Materialism and Atheism, outside, among most critic sectors, increasingly influencial in society in our days." (increasingly influencial, maybe more in European continent than in other regions, if you agree that) signed Avinash kumar

[edit] Similarities in Contemporary Western culture

I've made some impliations in content and background to the part referring to 'Similarities', in 'Contemporary Western culture', that was too brief, simplified and poor. I've also clarified some concepts, and added some current debate, referring to Democracy as 'preferred forms of government'. I paste here the complete paragraphs that I've added information to, the way they'd look after doing so, in their final form:

«Western cultures tend to emphasize the individual, as resulted from a large influence derived from romanticism. However, most of Western societies have traditionally been, and often keep being, at some degree, socially collective, giving a major importance to social majority traditions or tendencies (such as customs, protocols, believes or fashion), that often tend to be prescripted over minority or individual ones, specially when hardly divergent, what can at times derive on ways of intolerance, prejudices and social exclusion. In general, western cultures tend to emphasize consensus over any kind of minority or individual solution. This has developed, in a further stage, into democratic ideas, that, added to typically romantic individualist and liberal ones, have merged into some major, increasing degree of respect and tolerance toward differences (especially in thought or opinion), understood as a matter of diversity, rather than as a source of threat or conflict, and coming even to respect for other cultural realities, and interest for them to be studied and learn from, driving to new academic tendencies, as well as subcultural and countercultural ones, such as orientalism or New Age.

The preferred forms of government in western society are multi-partyist parliamentary or congressional systems, frequently referred to as Democracy, which also favors, through liberal ideas, the concept of individualism, as well as some sort of majority consensus when coming to adopt collective decisions. These systems are, however, becoming increasingly questioned and criticized by some sectors of society, concerning a debate around whether they are or not actually democratic. Some of the points to think this are that most population get no effective access to power, but just a chance through vote to decide or change the party or branch that will instead, that generally tends, as it approaches to power, to seek for its own interests rather than interests of people who have voted them, that they say to represent, so nothing actually guarantees they'll excercize power in the way it was promised or expected; plus the fact that decision of the part resulting higher in number (especially in a referendum) tends to impose over those or that one of that part which isn't, so it would actually become some kind of 'dictatorship', or despotism, from a part of society over other, without that last one being represented when final decision adopted. Due to these reasons, these critic sectors of society tend to bet for some kind alternative system which implies some further or real degree of accessing and participation of population in power, as a matter of 'real democracy'. Common criticisms to these points are that they can be non-realistic or utopian, or that they require some further degree of social consciousness of compromise, implication, responsibility and 'collective leadership', that has not been yet developed by most of society who should take part into it.»

I've changed "economically collective" for "socialy collective" as I understood it was what meant to be, or made more sense, when referring to cultural issues; otherwise, I would thank for it to be explained what it was meant by "though some societies are or have been economically collective", because it's not a clear statement, but questionable. If it was referred to the 'political/economical infrastructures' typical from soviet systems or socialization processes, I think it's a different issue that would fit better in the 'political paragraph' (second), than cultural one. signed by DeepQuasar

[edit] Remove

Also the information under section "Beyond art and politics" is very progressive but probably should be moved under the title "Liberalism". However one agrees with what it states, these qualities are rather universal but not nesessarily "Western". One should look at what UK prime minister says and does to understand that stating these qualities as "Western" are at least doubtful. And is G.W.Bush the man of the Western culture? Hmm. Maybe we shall stop generalizing things and shall start to look at people according to their individual merits...

[edit] Split into Two Articles?

The different complaints presented above all make sense to me, and all seem to have some merit. The conflicting visions of what an article on Western Culture ought to be both seem correct. This leads me to suppose that the article needs to be split in two separate articles:

  • One article for "historical influences on Western Culture", perhaps starting with the end of the Greek dark ages, and going up to the mid-to-early industrial age. Perhaps ending coverage around the end of World War II.
  • Another artcile would cover "contemporary western culture" that would deal with the current ideals and ephemera. Stuff like blue jeans.

It seems that the issue about points of view is wrapped up with the differences between what a "Western" point of view was and what it now is, both of which are muddy issues anyway. I'm not sure how to deal with how is over here as opposed to over there, where-ever "here" and "there" might be, but then and now might be fixable by a split. Tom Lougheed 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility is a postmodern approach to the concept of western culture. The history of the western culture begins with the first time the concept was introduced in its contemporary meaning. Then could be portrayed how the concept changed in the past century and what the most striking differences between the use of this concept are. Problem is that i know nearly nothing about it and i am very busy, so somebody else should read some handbooks and edit this article.--Daanschr 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, The article should definetely split into two articles. This article seems to dwell too much on the history and origin, rather than the actual culture and what it means today. *ahem* Not to mention that it's horribly biased. The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I started a new chapter called contemporary western culture, to fill the gap. I am very agitated at the moment, because of a paper that i am making for homework, which must consist out of 15,000 words, so my edit was perhaps a little bit too fast. You may change whatever you like of it. At the moment it is still pathetic.--Daanschr 14:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is "still pathetic" It is so bad that it is impossible to improve it incrementally. Typos, poor grammar, and just plain bad writing. The whole thing (contemporary western culture) should be removed or entirely rewritten. DonSiano 11:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice to know that we got a real discussion. Perhaps you have any suggestions on what you like to keep, what should be removed and what you like to add? Frankly, i like the overall idea of trying to determine the similarities and differences within the contemporary western culture. The main reason for my bad grammer, is that i am not native english speaking.
I don't agree with you that it can't be improved incrementally. Could you make clear where you don't approve with my edits? I know that a major shortcoming is the lack of sources, allthough some of the links that i made, like South Park and Michel Houellebecq, will give some explanation on the western culture. I also know a good Japanese example of rising cynism, what about Battle Royale?--Daanschr 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The worldview tag

I really believe the worldview tag posted on the talk page should also be put at the top of the article itself. Readers should be informed that this article is potentially biased before they read it. The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 02:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved that back to the article page becuase that is where it generally belongs. While their are some tags that go on the talk pages such as the controversial tag this is not one of them. --Cab88 08:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Appreciated. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Deletions

I don't agree with the recent deletions. It seems like a violation of the Npov#Pseudoscience rule. To make an article npov, all povs have to be included without making a judgement. Michel Foucault had a very clear view about the western culture and he is very popular around the world. It is not for nothing that his article became featured due to the enthusiasm of the editors who contributed on his page. Also, I think that Edward Saids view about the west should be kept into this article. My opinion is that a right-wing purge has occured to this page. I hope that future changes will be made after a debate in this talk page. I suggest that the recent deletions should be reverted.--Daanschr 14:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you are referring to my deletions (I've made several) in the introductory para, but they seem uncontroversial to me. The introduction was so ungrammatical that it was incoherent. It was really hard to read, I thought. The links were in some cases inappropriate, and I changed those and added needed ones too. The intro para should be general enough to introduce the topic, and is not the place to put special cases, exceptions, narrow viewpoints and it should be short, with no redundancies. To revert these changes is not warranted.
As for the Foucault sentence, which I also removed, I believed that the sentence in question was out of place. Mention of his viewpoint can, of course, be included, but should not be where it was under the broad description of the "History." I don't recall "Said's view" and don't think I touched it.
The article needs references, and I added three. We still need more.
"The second para, referring to the cold war needs work too. A "contrast" that becomes "synonymous with" is poor English. It is jargon.
DonSiano 14:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with the deletions in the introduction.

Foucault was (besides philosopher) a historian, so i think that his view should be in the history of western culture. Edward Said 'sharply criticized Western scholarship of the East', to quote the introduction of his article. You deleted his views on the difference between east and west.

I will add some references as well.--Daanschr 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

----------
Ok, I was concerned that your problem was with the intro. It is much better now, don't you think? As I said, adding Foucault ref is ok, but let's try to put it in the right place, and not to overemphasize it. This is, after all, an article which has a history section of Europe which failed to mention feudalism! I looked, but failed to find the Said ref. You may be right that I deleted it though. Could you give a date or version from the history that has it? I'll take a look. How about the second para of the intro?
DonSiano 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro is better indeed.

Here is a summary of your last edits[1]. you deleted all references to east west differences from the description. There is no reference to Said, but the text refers to orientalism, which was critizised by Said. I think that the deconstruction of the term western should be kept into the article.

I don't agree with you about Foucault. My pov is that the text of Foucault and Elias should be kept entirely. I don't know exactly what you mean with the right place. Many people here on this talk page have complained about the overemphasis on western achievements throughout the ages, but they didn't delete the edits.--Daanschr 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Feudalism is a highly controversial term.
In military history, feudalism has only existed for less then a century in most of Europe. Before 1100, armies were gathered ad hoc and after 1300 carefully balanced elite armies were bought and prepared for in cities.
In many European countries, the central government did its best to defeat the independent internal nobility throughout the entire middle ages.--Daanschr 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood your "Said" ref. I now understand it to be the sentence or two about discipline as refed by Elias and Foulcault. Is this correct? It read: "Discipline became an important aspect of the western culture during the renaissance (see Norbert Elias and Michel Foucault). Emphasizing civilized behavior and disciplining is not special for the western culture. Western discipline led to military drill and military inventions, which enabled military world dominance. "
This was startling to me because when I searched the Elias ref the word discipline was not mentioned, so something seemed very wrong. Foulcault mentions discipline mostly in the context of prisons, apparently, so this seemed weird. Then the idea that this appearance of discipline in the renaissance leading to military drill (parade) seemed ludicrous--soldiers have paraded from ancient times, and the renaissance has nothing to do with. Stylistically, "(see So and so)" is wrong--there is a "See also" section. So I delted the whole sorry mess. Those two sentences are incomprehensible to the average reader. I stand by the deletion.DonSiano 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"Foucault mentions discipline mostly in the context of prisons..." Not quite. Foucault describes the evolution of the "disciplinary power" in Western culture. He traces its evolution from the power of the sovereign over the bodies of subjects in feudal times (a "policy of terror," which included the power to torture and to display offenders in the "spectacle of the scaffold"). Foucault, says that with the advent of the industrial revolution, the power of the ruling authority became covert (typified by prisons)—a panoptic mechanism of surveillance (the guards, invisible in their darkened towers watching the prisoners silhouetted in their lighted cells). In modern times, panopticism has shifted into society; includes surveillance of a wide variety of types and extends to potential offenders in a "disciplinary matrix" that pervades the institutions of western society. Is this relevant to the article? I would say it is a perspective that would enrich the article, as would the paragraph referring to orientalism. Sunray 20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A sentence in the wikipedia article of Norbert Elias is: Elias traced how post-medieval European standards regarding violence, sexual behaviour, bodily functions, table manners and forms of speech were gradually transformed by increasing thresholds of shame and repugnance, working outward from a nucleus in court etiquette. The internalized "self-restraint" imposed by increasingly complex networks of social connections... The word discipline hasn't been mentioned in his article, but these sentences are referring to it. It would be strange if it isn't mentioned in one of his books as a main theme.

I have the impression that you (DonSiano) are not an expert on these subjects, since you didn't know anything about Said. I think it is not appropriate to delete edits based on the main theme of worldwide famous writers, while you don't know about them. Both Said, Elias and Foucault have written about the western culture and not something else, so it would be good to include them into this article. I will search for some footnotes, to make the claims stronger.--Daanschr 09:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Military drill is a Dutch invention. I am Dutch, so i am very proud of it. I learned it during a introduction course of military history on Leiden university. The Dutch were rebels of the Spanish empire in the late 16th century. The Spanish had an at that time invincible army, which was much larger then the Dutch forces. Prince Maurice of Orange, commander of the Dutch army decided to use everything to led the Dutch freedom and the protestant religion survive. Many scientists of Leiden University helped him in his attempt to create an army that would defeat the Spanish. They read old handbooks from the Greek and Roman antiquity and tried to adapt the knowledge into the time of musqeteers and cannons. The Dutch army became a proffesional army, meaning that it trained every day and tried out all kinds of new tactics, which were made up by Maurice and his brother and by scientists. This was a new practise, nobody before them trained an army all year long. Before prince Maurice, shouting was used at the onset of a battle to get rid of the fear. After prince Maurice shouting became a regular part of military drill. He also introduced parading on a daily basis. The Dutch tactics were succesful at the Battle of Nieuwpoort and in the campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus. After Gustavus Adolphus, it was taken over by all european countries, especially the Prussian discipline is notorious, which started after the continuous pillaging of neutral Brandenburg by both protestant and catholic armies during the Thirty Years War.--Daanschr 10:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting. I definitely think that it has relevance. However, it is unlikely that we could state that military discipline is in any way unique to western culture. It may be relevant to compare the form of drill with other cultures. Sunray 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3,000 British troops defeated 50,000 Bengali during the Battle of Plassey, this is only one of many examples of western military dominance.--Daanschr 09:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Beyond art and politics: Deleted line that stated homosexuality is an accepted alternative lifestyle and includes acceptance of homosexual marriage. This is a recent phenomena of controversy that is not wide spread enough (or sufficiently enduring) to list as an attribute of Western civilization. Particularly homosexual marriage, the first of which was performed in the Netherlands 2001, and which is legal only in 5 countries, and a couple U.S. states. It would be best if the issue were not mentioned at all, but if it must be discussed the wording should read something like: "Trending toward acceptance of homosexuality as an aspect of individual civil liberties." Darien_McLean 20:03, 2 October 2006

[edit] From dawn to decadence: 500 years of western cultural life 1500 to the present

I don't agree with the reference with this title. The term decadence has been used from the onset of the western culture in 1500. The term was used to describe the vices elite culture and the lack of will to defend once country with military force in the 16th century. It has also been used to describe citylife in the 18th century after the attempts to get rid of the paupers was a failure. Romantics were decadent on purpose. The 19th century saw the birth of the decadent movement. It would be silly only to mention decadence to describe the contemporary western culture. It could be that it has been described in this book, but the version 'dawn to decadence' implies that this is not the case.

Since i have the impression that this discussion will take on longer, it would be better to analyse the npov rules in order to be sure that we will come to an agreement. Important is to come to a majority scientific worldview. That will be impossible with this topic. So, we have to consider what could be considered as the majority scientific worldviews.--Daanschr 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose that is a flashy book title, presmeably chosen for mercenary purposes. It is only a reference and a pretty good one, I think. The article should have _some_ references and footnotes, surely. Do you want to remove it? Perhaps you could add a few.
DonSiano 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I will edit an introduction to the book, to get the bias out of it in accordance to the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements policy.--Daanschr 09:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Western civilization (old proposal)

Aren't civilization and culture overlapping terms? In my opinion they are at least to such an extent connected that it is impossible to have non-overlapping pages. It would also put some defining characteristics, which are currently disputed, in a context. Sijo Ripa 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right that those terms are overlapping eachother. Still, i think that a difference can be made between culture and civilization. Civilization sounds larger to me. Western culture could have a small definition of Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and perhaps also Japan. I would like to have an article, that is dealing with the difference between the 'western culture' with developed economies and cultures with underdeveloped economies. A solution could be to link both articles to eachother and that 'western civilization' will deal with modernism, imperialism, invention and westernization and that 'western culture' will deal with the contemporary culture. This way, we can deal with the requests to split this article.--Daanschr 13:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Western civilization and then split in subpages? + Avoid confusion between culture and politics

(Reply to: Daanschr 13:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)): Civilization isn't or doesn't have to be larger or different than culture. Civilization is always about a specific culture. For instance, when Samuel P. Huntington divided the world into civilizations he named N-America, W-Europe and Australia and New Zealand the "Western civilization" and you call the same area "Western culture". Huntington also added that it was possible that the Latin-American and the Slavic-Orthodox civilizations (and even Turkey) could become part of this Western civilization (or already are) as they are to a very large extent similar to Western civilization. This is then again similar to what others call the definition of "Western culture". Therefore, it depends on the definition one uses whether it can be one page. --Describing the "Western culture" and the "Western civilization" will always be POV, as there is no consensus about which countries should be included in either one of them (if the terms are already different). Therefore I think it would be better to have one consensus page, which highlights the evolution and the different definitions and can link to subpages for more detailed discriptions/geographical or timebound subcultures. For instance: "Western civilization (Ancient)", "Western civilization (Middle Ages)", "Western civilization (Colonization)", etc. and contemporary "European culture", "American culture", etc. --A last note: I think the Western cultural world ("civilization") and the Western political world (political, economical and military "cooperation": NATO, ANZUS, EU, etc.) are different. However remember that you can fight wars or eradicate eachother (WW I, WW II, etc.), and still have a similar culture. Both "worlds" should therefore not be confused. Sijo Ripa 20:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Daanschr 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hold on, guys. There is no article titled "Western civilization" it is a redirect to "Western world." I would not be in favour of a merge between "Western world" and Western culture. The former article is political (and appropriately so, as noted by Sijo Ripa). Western culture is the far broader topic. Theoretically "Western world" could become a part of "Western culture," but as they are both substantial articles already, it would make an overly lengthy article. Thus, both articles should stand on their own, IMO. As to POV, we can control that with good sources. We simply pick a definitive source or sources and quote or cite them. This will make more interesting and informative articles if it's done well. It requires more rigour, but is exactly the project of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (i.e., a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge"). Sunray 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Western world can remain apart, but Western civilization shouldn't. Also currently the Western world page is still too much about culture IMO, while it should be about the politics (e.g., Greece vs. Persia, Rome vs. the Parths, Christianity vs. Islam, NATO vs. Warsaw, etc. - though it shouldn't be necessarily limited to such external tensions) which have occurred in the Western cultural world. Sijo Ripa 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, there is no Western civilization article. It is a redirect. Otherwise, I agree with everything you say above. if there are aspects of "Western world" that are too much about culture, they can be moved to "Western culture." Sunray 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know there isn't one. Sorry for the confusion. I ment the same however. Move the redirect, and the cultural parts to this page. Sijo Ripa 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that does make sense. Sunray 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The strange thing is that i first looked at Western Civilization and then at Western Culture, and i was able to notice a difference. ;-) Being a postmodernist, i don't mind very much what will be the header of an article. I think it would be nice to have an article about the contemporary western culture as it is since 1980 or the 1990s.--Daanschr 12:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think "culture" can be regarded as more temporary (e.g., Western culture (1945-present)) and more specific (e.g., "Roman culture"), and civilization as more enduring ( "Western civilization", which is also dynamic, but is more wider and general, longer term, makes abstraction of subtle differences and outliers). Sijo Ripa 12:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
My view of this is that "Western culture" is the broader term. It is also more neutral. "Western civilization" is inherently biased, taking the position that the west is "civilized" and that "less civilized" cultures (such as hunter-gatherers) are inferior. "Western world" is the more neutral term that allows one to speak of political/economic factors. Sunray 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. The concept of civilization is very strong worldwide. People are forced to adapt, not only because they are described as inferior in the language, but because they are weak in the physical reality. Trying to delete the concept describing this fenomenon will not make an end to the practise of the worldwide dominance of elements of the western civilization. I mean this from a perspective similar of the sociologist Max Weber, so i hope that you will not confuse me for a rascist. In the end we are al weak. My view is that western dominance is coincidence and that many causes for this dominance are irrelevant for the future. I think that the term civilization and other terms that describe dependency relations should be used in an encyclopedia, otherwise we wouldn't have words to describe them. An idea is to mention the controversiality of potentially biased terms based on Wikipedia:Npov#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.--Daanschr 09:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought you said you were a "postmodernist." Civilize in English carries a definite value judgement — as one dictionary definition puts it: "[to] bring (a place or people) to a stage of social, cultural, and moral development considered to be more advanced." "Culture" carries none of this baggage. Sunray 19:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. To repeat the Hungtington example. Huntington put every culture/people in the world into a civilization, which means that everyone lives (according to him) in a civilization. Thus the term civilization does not necessarily mean that when one lives in a civilization others in the world aren't. I think that at least some other social scientists have a similar view as Huntington, which means that civilization can have a neutral connotation. I also think that in the past the term was much more value loaded than in the current usage.Sijo Ripa 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It is fun to play around with words and make them mean whatever you want them to. However, not only do most dictionary definitions give the meaning that I quoted above, but most social scientists do too. The HarperCollins Dictionary of Sociology, for example, says that civilization is "well-established complex society... [having a] value positive connotation: civilization is usually contrasted favorably with the primitivism, savagery..." Please do some homework on this. Sunray 06:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And of course words cannot change in meaning. *sigh* It's not playing around with words. Civilization is a well established term (Western civilization: more than 8 million google hits). Also, you cannot deny the fact that it is increasingly used in a neutral way. And I find "please do some homework on this" extremely arrogant and close to a personal attack. For uses in academic journals in a neutral way, just visit academic search premier (academic journals section) and you'll find for the term "Western civilization" articles that talk about the importance of teaching all "world civilizations" in school, articles that examine mental disabilities in the "western civilization" since the Roman Empire, articles that deal with the Slavic and Arab influences on western civilization, articles that deal with the west-islamic tensions (calling both "civilizations"), the influence of the growing muslim communities on western civilization, and so on. I haven't encountered one article yet that describes one part of the world as savage. (Note however that I only have checked articles from recent years, as the list of very long) Rather they just see the Western civilization as one of the many civilization. Sijo Ripa 12:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to be treated with more respect, I would suggest that you not say things like: "I disagree," when all I have done is quote a dictionary definition. I've been trying to point out that the word "civilization" has a great deal of baggage. There are many articles on culture: Western culture; Asian culture, etc., but using such terms is always problematic as well, as you note. Obviously we should reflect all points of view in accordance with their relative importance. However, I think that we should stay away from neat classification schema such as Huntington's. His approach is controversial and, after all, is only one theory. Sunray 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As your (second) definition points out, it doesn't have to be value loaded (just read the "is usually contrasted"). In other words, the author defines whether he uses it in a value loaded way or not, whether or not he uses it in contrast. (Of course it always has a slightly positive connotation, but that's the same with so many terms. A negative connotation towards other people would be problematic however.) And you can easily find definitions that don't mention the contrast at all, and if you would have read my comment, you would have read that many authors, besides Hungtington, use the term in a neutral way (which isn't surprising according to your and many other definitions). An example of another definition is the broad (as opposed to the narrow) definition of Wikipedia: "In a broader sense, civilization often can refer to any distinct society, whether complex and city dwelling, or simple and tribal. This sense is often perceived as less exclusive and ethnocentric, or alternatively less useful and meaningful, than the first. In this sense, civilization is nearly synonymous with culture." In other words, if Wikipedia doesn't use it into a value loaded way, it isn't value loaded. Sijo Ripa 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't worked on this page, and the name is not important to me. But in my view, "Western Culture" or "Western Civilizatiion" essentially means "based on European history", although that might not be the best way to put it. If I was to look up either one, I would expect to read more or less about ancient Greece and Rome, the domination of the Christian Church, the Renaissance and the Reformation, and Shakespeare and so on, and how their influence has carried through the centuries (for better or worse). Maurreen 15:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Michel foucault is considered as one of the most prominent postmodernists. I have read a few texts of him. In one article in the 'History of Western Sexuality' (probably not the real title), Foucault repeated 50 times on a row 'all men are homosexuals'. He only gave one prove, namely that two straight men enjoyed having sex with eachother during a test on a French university. Being a straight male, i was astonished about this. My sexual feelings are not chosen. I fancy women, because nature forces me to this. This could probably mean that i am not a postmodernist, but i still regard myself being one. I once followed a course of philosophy and the teacher said the line: 'How to define the moment that you write,' preceded by what did i do this year, this month and this day. This belongs to the main theme of Foucault. I am not a philosopher, so i probably am not good in getting to the point. To interpretate Foucault, I think he means that reading, listening, talking, writing and acquiring knowledge are all acts. Knowledge is not some kind of solid building that expands, but it is scattered and fragmented in space and time. Within its context, knowledge is always different, because the context is lost once the moment is gone. The text of Foucault in which he states 'all men are gay' is knowledge because it exists (to my view of course). Being postmodern doesn't mean that i need to be against certain things, it means for me that i accept everything as it is because it exists, even racism or genocide. I think that the Wikipedia:NPOV rules are very postmodern. Wikipedia wants us to come to a consensus. It says that we should add all knowledge, even pseudoscientific or biased knowledge and get the bias out of it by coming to a 'worldwide majority view', whatever that means.
What i don't understand is why the Western Civilization should be looked at so negatively, i prefer a neutral POV. The only reason why the west is viewed as negative is because the west conquered the world, and gave all away because all men should be equal and free according to the western POV. An article about the Chinese civilization would never have these kind of disputes, because they were not strong enough to conquer all.
I think we should add the Huntington view, because it is a POV, allthough Wikipedia wants that only views that are hold by a significant amount of people should be added in order to make an article NPOV.--Daanschr 09:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise suggestion

Western civilization could become a disambiguation page, linking to both Western culture and Western world. Maurreen 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, did so 2 years on *rolls eyes*. Be bold guys! Sean Heron (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] japan a wester civ

I strongly disagree with the statement that "Japan has largely adopted Western culture." I find this at best an extremely superficial and simplistic "observation" and at worst an ethnocentric overgeneralization. The fact that people of Japan drive cars or wear suits only proves that there has been some material cultural transference. Americans literally eat tons of maize, tomatoes and potatoes. Have Americans "largely adopted Indigenous Native American culture?" I suggest you ask someone from Japan what they think of your statement. In my experience, Christianity, a fundamental and basic element of Western Civilization is still foreign to the average Japanese person from Japan. Shinto and Buddhism are preeminent. People of Japan speak Japanese, primarily eat traditional Japanese food, and write using the (originally Chinese) system that has been used in Japan for over 1000 years. Where is the "largely adopted Western culture?" The example given above regarding an adopted Chinese writing system is an excellent example. Japan has adopted technology and methodology from many places. And they made it just as Japanese as anything else they do. I have edited the picture caption accordingly.--AnthroLibrarian 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

since wwii
Sort of. An eastern civilisation heavily influenced by western civilisation perhaps would be a more accurate way of saying it?LupusCanis 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The eastern civilization does not exist. The whole world is heavily influenced by the western civilization. I think that Japan should be included into this article, because it is rich and has similar social institutions and phenomenon, which differ from underdeveloped countries. Japan has very large differences compared to Western Europe and North America. To name some examples:
  1. There are no housenumbers visable on Japanese houses. For a houseadress, people have to go to the police station, which serves as a public library. Policemen have become a sort of social workers, since crime is very limited in Japan. (Police_system_of_Japan#Police-Community_Relations)
  2. The mafia is called Yakuza in Japan. Yakuza is tolerated and has a huge scycraper in Tokyo with the text Yakuza on it. They still kill people, but they are not convicted for their crimes. (Yakuza#Current_Activities)
  3. The Japanese have very liberal views towards sexuality compared to North America and Western Europe. There is a guild gropers of women, who have a judo colour belt and they do interviews on the radio. The frequency of groping of women have resulted in special wagons in the metro for women. I witnissed this liberalism in the train in the Netherlands. Japanese youngsters where sitting on the ground near the entrance of a busy train with a pile of pornmagazines on their lap. In the Netherlands the sexual morale in the media and politics is very liberal, but in daily reality the Dutch are very conservative compared to the Japanese. (Josei Senyo Sharyo)--Daanschr 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Japan is Western? NONSENSE. Is this what Westerners think of Japan, or what Japan think of themselves? Sources? I am feeling that "Westerners" love to cherry-pick and call any rich, developed countries as "West" so that their "West Club" can look simply fabulous. Heilme 23:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this goes to show the difficulty in defining "Western". Is Australia "Western?" Not geographically. Culturally though, Australia is quite similar to the United Kingdom and is therefore normally thought of as Western. How about Bolivia? Geographically it is “Western” but culturally is quite different from any European culture normally thought of as "Western."

(This could be a scratch for some formal (and more structured) addition to this article, as an exemple of a mixed society, where coexistence among Western imported and native cultural substracts and standards is found. Plase, don't erase) In Bolivia, as well as in several other Hispanic American countries or regions, specially those from the Andean area, there exist the very courious phenomenon of a long and complex coexistence of two cultures, the traditional or colonial Hispanic one (very similar to that one traditionally and partly still found in southern rural Spain, like Canary Islands or Andalusia), mainly among creole communities and many assimilated mestizo or Amerindian communities, and even into this one, the modern "pan-Western" element is minor, comparing to Europized countries such as Spain, or South Conus (Argentina, Chile and Uruguay), being this "modern Western" element increasingly influencial in big urban and industrialized cores and through mass media, with a major presence or influence of contemporaneous European and Northern American cultural standards and values, as well as Globalization's ones, the (eurocentristically) so-called 'first world'; and on the other hand, a traditional subsisting Amerindian culture, among many Indigenous and mestizos communities, at many times with certain elements or influences imported from Hispanic colonial tradition, too, but merged with those preeminently native American. Bolivia is one of those country where native, or as they like to say "originary" substract, with some Hispanic traces, is majoritary (about 80 something percent), in a big diversity, too, and Creole substract is minoritary (about 20%), but it makes a disproporcional influence comparing to the first one in the political system, mass media, cultural standards, etc., being (or pretending so) the traditional Hispanic and Western substract a matter of prestige, and often disprestiging, infra-valoring, depreciating or ignore this one the Amerindian one. This Amerindian one, anyway, is often non-pure, but, as I say, contains some obvious (and respectable) traces from imported Creole elements, specially traditional Hispanics (rather than pan-Western); even though in some Andean communities where this substract is too minoritary, isolated, and constantly exposed to direct creole contact and influence (like in dispersed and immigrated communities into creole ones, or into big urban cores), it tends to become assimilated or self-depreciated, feeling itself inferior. But in these other areas from native or mestizo Bolivia (and in a way the highlands from Peru or Ecuador), where this element is too preeminent, generalized and diverse, as well as demographically majoritary, strong, and very attached to a strong tradition and self-identy, it has taken a strong self-consciousness, which is starting to play a counter-part. A proove of this is the voting of first mestizo president, Evo Morales, that seems to shily starts to make some social estatal reforms largely demmanded by large and humble sectors of population, in the poorest areas (where this element is strongest), and that self-identify with Amerindian cultural symbol, the growing presence of quechua and aymara Amerindian languages in education, politics, offices, new technologies and public life, the adoption of these Quechua, Aymara, plus minoritary (but also important) guaraní as co-official languages with Casitlian (Spanish), and so growing presence of this native element, through indigenous or mestizos diputees, in parliament and politic life; events these, with no precedent in history of an Spanish American country, of those where indigenous population have traditionally been important (many of them), having most of these fields typically monopolized by creole aristocracy and cultural standards, mainly traditional Hispanic, and growingly European or 'Western'. Signed DeepQuasar

[edit] Made a small alteration

Saying that the majority of Western Europeans are agnostic or atheist is rather hyperbolic, so I just changed "the majority of" to "many" - it is certainly not a majority of the %s cited are accurate and indicadive of a trend across the whole area. It is, however, a VERY significant minority. LupusCanis 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Incorrect Information

This article makes several mistakes. I'm taking out information that I feel does not apply to the western world defined as "cultures of the people of European origin and their descendants". If someone wants to reinclude the information with a quality citation, I won't object. Most of the cutting is from the "Beyond art and politics" section.--Dr.Worm 02:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you excluded freedom as an important value, and the fact that many countries in the western world have strong socialist political parties as opposed to the USA. I had the impression, reading the npov-rules, that deletion of material should be done after consultation on the talk page of an article, not before. Also, in the Netherlands non-western immigrants are not immigrants from Japan. Japanese immigrants are counted as western. So, your assumption that the western world only includes (transplanted) Europeans is only one point of view, which is not consisted with the practise in social sciences in at least one country.--Daanschr 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Feminism and the rights of homosexuals have absolutely nothing to do with socialism and to link them in a single sentence is very misleading.

[edit] A lot of confusions

I tend to think that the whole point of view of the so-called "western culture" seems very confusing and oriented in a American-centred point of view.

The basic confusion is, in my opinion, as it is made in usual language between "western culture" as refering to European christian cultures (with the huge cultural differences, like beetween latin/catholic-based cultures and Anglo/Protestant-based cultures for exemple) with "modernity" (social modernity, technological modernity, fashions, etc.) and with "American civilisation". I think that in the USA these three concepts overlap and make the American society. The consequence of this overlaping is that from an American point of view (in this article) a lot of characteristics which are basically American, or caracteristics which are modern societies caracteristics are all put in this whole "western culture" group. As if all of these elements were basically common traditional elements of all western countries; Which is completly wrong. A lot of these caracteristics (such as consumerism, lost of honor codes, society oriented to personal development and material improvement, nuclear-family based society, etc. Are things that were completly inexistant in most western European countries only 40 years ago. I'm from France, my parents were born in a society which was part of the western civilisation since thousands of years, but without a lot of these tipical things of the "modern civilisation". It was before the modernization/Americanisation of the sixties (and excuse me also the tem "americanisation", because it was also in big part made with cultural things of American origins, musics, fashions, etc.)

I thing that calling these "modern global culture of American origin" "western culture" can be very confusing because it is not basically a caracteristic of all countries of western culture (even in western Europe a lot of people continue to live following a more "traditional way of life (which is western by the way)".

This confusion with of the two different concepts can lead some "sociologists" such as huttington to draw maps of "civilisation" made on an exclusive USA's point of view, in which "western" means more or less "in the sphere of influence of the modern American civilisation and way of life". which would mean that to be "western" a country is supposed to be rich, democratic, consumerist, practicing all these modern values, enjoying "international" fashion such as hip-hop culture or fast foods and leisure parks, etc. Which would mean that all the countries that does not share these "modern" caracteristics are not supposed to be of "western culture", which is of course wrong. Myself I am shoked to see that latin-America is excluded from huntington's "western civilisation", since these countries, despite being generally poor, share much more of lot of traditional values and cultural caracteristics that are present in my own western country than in the USA, through the latin herency and the catholic values.

I am also disturbed with the confusion wich is made between "modern civilisation" and the Greco-Roman civilisation. If Grego-Roman was one the the foundations (bringing christianity with it) of the European civilisation, it was not the only one. Germanic civilisation for exemple is another, especially important for northen European civilisation, which have developped their own version of christianity, quite different from the Roman catholic one. But put Greek and Roman civilisation as the fathers of the "modern consumerist civilisation" is just wrong; These civilisations have influenced much more the mediterranean Europe (which curiously is less "westernized" (in the "modern" meaning), or is since less time. Which is the symbol of western civillisation and which has more link to greco-roman world: the modern the "fast-food", or the Italian "slow-food" ? The problem is, with all the confusion with the term "western culture", when thinking of westernization most people would think more "fast-food" than the traditional family social meal of the mediterranean regions. Another point is that linking the "modern western culture" with "greek" herency, is too forget that greek civilisation can be as much a point of reference for European culture than for eastern mediterranean cultures. Especially for the arabo-muslim civilisation who took a lot in greek (and Roman too) culture, wich was present ont he mediterranean regions before the arrival of the Arabs. Greek philosophy, Greek science astronomy, poetry, mathematics have been one of the main foundations of the Islamic civilisation. The Greco-roman urbanity and architecture (introverted patio-based architecture, baths, etc) had also much more influence on islamic cities than on European ones (especially on north American and northern European ones). we could find much more other exemples.

I think the whole concept of "western" has become too much incaccurate in its modern meaning that the role of an encyclopedia (especially an international and global one) is precisely to stop the confusion and should be less American-centred. This article should avoid to use the word "western" in the cold-war political meaning and in the same time put the accent just in the historical meaning that include European cultures, and explain why it is hasardous to use "western" as synomym of "modern societies".

I have started a new project: WikiProject debate on literature before editing aimed at writing an article after debating about relevant literature. I am willing to help rewriting this article if you like the join this project. We could find relevant literature and debate about it. Everybody is welcome to join in.
I like your input about the western culture. I don't agree though that the western culture is two millenia old. The western culture is as old as orientalism and dates from the 19th century. I agree that the concept of western culture has very different meanings, therefor i suggest a research of the literature in order to find it out.--Daanschr 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


An excellent discussion. I love it. In my opinion, Americans and Europeans seem to have separated in terms of values and the perception of "Western culture" in American context versus European context are different. In America, where their history only really begins in 1776, they tend to look forward and mix "modernism" as part of its Western culture. Europeans tend to look more towards its past (thousands-year-old Greek and Roman culture) and therefore tend to be more "traditional". Of course, setting the date as what is considered "traditional" is difficult because a culture always changes with time. But to claim that Western culture include overly modernistic terms such as consumerism, casual sexual practice, or even human rights/democratic values are completely derived from American perspectives. When do human rights/democratic issues themselves truly began to be important even in the West? The Age of Empires or Colonialism only ends about 50 years ago. Consumerism only starts last century when global economy took off. As for casual sexual practice before marriage, I guess that's everyone's little secret. :P Heilme 23:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on this. Americans find it difficult to discuss culture, simply because they just do not have the history that Europeans do. Casual sexual practice and democracy/human rights is what they think is culture. Even if those beliefs were to be accepted as culture, they should have been around for at least a thousand years or so to be called culture. Americans are a group of people who can change their belief systems when it is convenient for them. USA had de jure segregation till 1967 with their Black population hardly having any constitutional rights. 1967 was just 40 years ago. Their point of view suggests that within 40 years some miracle happened and their culture started believing in human rights. They talk about human rights while they have prisons such as Guantanomo Bay. 99.229.163.64 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with western world

I discovered that personal freedom is continuously deleted from the list of Western culture#Beyond art and politics. In the netherlands, personal freedom is the primary value. This means that the central value of one of the countries of the western culture apparently doesn't belong to this article.

Last years i am getting more and more the impression that the western culture doesn't exist. At the moment the two main cultures mentioned in this article are seperate. I am talking about the American culture and the European culture. There are several reasons for thinking that the American culture and the European culture are very different. 1) Europe is secular and America christian, 2) Europe is in favour of international cooperation personified in the European Union, and America is in favour of schisma and war, 3) America likes to break international law and international agreements and Europe want to uphold these old traditions of the western culture, 4) America has an anti-social policy of exploiting its poor population, while Europe tries to be humane to those who live in Europe, 5) America tries to control the entire world by filling everybodies minds with irrational fears, while Europe is in favour of letting reality speak for itself through science and act upon it politically, 6) America thinks that politics is only about money and power, while in (Northern) Europe, politics is primarily for helping the common people and society, without having a ratrace for survival. Therefore, i request that this article should be merged with Western World. I don't belong to a culture that includes the United States of America.--Daanschr 14:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal freedom is greater in the US than in the Netherlands where freedom of speech isn't guaranteed due to hate-speech laws, often driven by irrational fears. Next there's severe indoctrination by the media, which often results in, for example, anti-american sentiments, and strengthens various believes to fascist levels. If I'm not mistaken there was a near lethal arson attack on a meeting of a political party some years ago, due to the party being considered 'evil' non of the attackers were arrested, and though a woman lost her leg, the incident was regarded by the mainstream political parties as an 'insignificant accident'. Not to mention the murder on Theo van Gogh for freely speaking his mind, two homosexuals holding hands in Amsterdam being beaten up by some youths, several politicians needing police protection due to constant death threats, attacks during every far right demonstration by so called 'anti-fascists', attacks on political campaigners, and last but not least, the demonization of people with 'despicable believes' by the media which resulted in the murder on Pim Fortuyn.
You definitely picked the wrong country as the bastion of 'personal freedom'. --Zero g 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
But are we discussing about Western culture, or about politic and social-economic systems ruling in many or most of countries that belong to Western culture? Because all you have mention seems to be a mediatic or politic system issue; you are talking about the opinions mass media and mainstream politic parties (specially those with power) spread, being there an interest, ideologic or class issue... That's different to say... "Western culture" or "Western societies" support so. Western culture or societies are something more than what they say in TV, what upper, dominant classes want to make us beleive.
By the way, it's most of times far right wings who claim for disrespect or are disrespectful, as a part of their ideologies and purposes, with whole collectives from society that haven't done a thing to them, like blacks, immigrants, gays, indigents, hippies, peacifists, atheists, communists, social movements, worker unions, leftist people or parties, speakers of local languages, regional nationalists, etc. It's not so strange, then, that many people feel no sympathy toward them and can't tolerate their institutionalisation... This doesn't mean an important value in that society be not respect for personal freedom, but opposite, it's those who oppose or attack that personal freedom who, for many into that society, can't have any justification or acceptation into it, since that abussive freedom of them seeks to cut off any legitimate freedom of others.
I agree respect for personal freedom and individuous is an important characteristic of modern Western culture, or at least a very important part from it. DeepQuasar 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was wrong indeed that far-right political parties were treated with disrespect. This has considerably changed though. Geert Wilders, Rita Verdonk and Marco Pastors are respectable members of the political community. Minister Rita Verdonk is trying to solve the immigration problem, thereby actively helped by Ahmed Aboutaleb. This is unique in the world, i guess, that someone like Verdonk can get such a level of respect. It is not possible in Belgium that Filip Dewinter becomes the minister of integration and is able to solve the problem of integration thereby helped by a prominent member of the most difficult groups of immigrants.

In the USA this would be completely impossible. There the politics estranges itself from the population, trying to rule by cheating and lying. No wonder that that country is suffering from a major disillusionment. Despite being left, i am confident with the Dutch politics, and i assume that the right and even the far right is confident in my country as well. A major difference between Europe and the USA is that Europeans try to solve problems by talking and trying to understand eachother, while Americans, especially the Republicans try to solve problems by creating unnecassary fears, suspicions and by lying and cheating. This kind of policy considerably reduces personal freedom in the USA. As John Stuart Mill wrote, people shouldn't be able to sell themselves into slavery.--Daanschr 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I could name numerous occasions where Wilders and Verdonk (who was spat upon by a student) were treated with the utmost disrespect. You conveniently left out Smit from Nieuw Rechts, who like the above can't walk around freely without protection even though his political importance is insignificant. Verdonk and Aboutaleb aren't on friendly footing so I'm not sure where that argument is coming from. Verdonk and her soft immigration politics are also not comparable to Filip Dewinter.
The Netherlands used the same strategy as the US regarding its immigration policies. Immigrants were allowed into the country without the population's consent, and anyone who dared speaking up against it was labeled a racist and subsequently ignored. Crime, unemployment, and other unfavorable statistics were kept from the population, such as the fact that 75% of the muslim population marries a bride or groom from their home country. Though recent Dutch laws made this more difficult Dutch muslims simply marry in Belgium nowadays. I'd say the bullying and indoctrination the Dutch population faces easily out matches Republican politics, and Mill's quote easily goes for Holland, the Dutch people sold themselves into slavery by the unrealistic ethical norms the government forced them to adopt. --Zero g 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It's the blocking and repressive immigrant policies of countries like US and Netherlands, what make ILLEGAL and 2nd class those citizens who seeked for better life and economic conditions for him and their family by going more developped countries. Such policies make citizens seeking for assile to become fugitives, proscripts, undocumented, humble, poor, indigent, letting them free to be exploited, threated or abussed from, and don't let them get a dignified job. It is THIS situation, derived from this unjust policies of doubtful human sense, that convert countries in fortress, what create so many criminals. Those points ignore or skip their reality and thus are pointless. I remind you that time ago (in the case of Aruba still, I think) Dutch Antilles were colonized, exploited and opressed, and half-developped by Dutches, what is worst than crime, because it's institutionalized. That's not criming? You now complain them to come as a consequence of the bad conditions you have left, isn't that a bit contradictory, and very cinical? DeepQuasar 02:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There were nice graphics on crime and immigrants in the newspapers. It was very clear that the Antillian and Moroccan immigrants represented the largest amount of criminals and the Dutch ethnic population the least. It is also known that the muslim population takes many brides and grooms from their native countries. Especially the male muslims do this, because they think that the female muslims in the Netherlands are too independent.

Nowadays, all politicians in the Netherlands need bodyguards, which is not surprising given the many death threats from both the left and the right.

Minister Winsemius of housing said that the immigrant problem is about to explode in the same way as in France, so emergency measures have to be taken to turn the tide. At the moment the borders are closed. Only refugees are excepted.

Verdonk may be soft in your view, but in the Netherlands she is regarded as too hard. The VVD was split in two camps regarding the treatment of immigrants, which nearly destroyed this political party. Verdonk lost her election to Rutte, which can give you an indication that the kind of language she uses is regarded as negative by a considerable amount of conservative liberals. The CDA had problems especially with the treatment of immigrants thanks to the policy of Verdonk. The whole CDA department of the province of Friesland threatened to split if the top of the party wouldn't implement a more social policy towards the poor and the immigrants. Prime minister Balkenende had to hurry to Friesland and other parts of the country to try to keep the party from falling apart. D66 was part of the coalition government, but left only because of the anti-immigrant policy of Verdonk. Now, D66 tries to fight as best as it can to marginalize Verdonk and other anti-immigrant politicians. Wilders and Pastors can only get 5 seats out of 150 at least.

A poll on the opinion of the Dutch population has proven that more then 2/3 of the populatian wants to make an end to the discussion on immigrants and want other issues to become more important. Filip Dewinter said about it that the Dutch population is tired and that the policy of Verdonk of the last years was good. Do you really think that Dewinter is a radical when he says something like that? The Belgians should end the cordon sanitaire and except the opinion of a million Flemish. For me, discriminating rascists is a kind of rascism in itself.--Daanschr 10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dewinter prefers a full immigration stop, something that is far from Verdonk's goal.
The eventual oppression of "racists" was predicted by Churchill who said "The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists", probably fearing that anti-fascists sentiments would develop into a polar opposite. --Zero g 16:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your change of the article is right, but only partly. The economy of the entire western world has not grown as much in the last 30 years as it did in the 1950s and 1960s, so a more liberal (instead of socialist) economy had to be implemented. However, you are right that former left-wing people are now voting right-wing due to the immigrant problem. At the moment i still vote left, but i am doubting wether i should vote Eén NL at the moment instead of Groen Links. You are partly right, but i think your views are too one-sided. There are more things in life then immigrants.--Daanschr 10:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But taking the Netherlands as an example there is no real poverty. Also, the "less rich" people generally vote socialistic, not right wing. I've seen no indication that the poor are voting capitalistic because they believe it will lead to greater prosperity. What might be the case is that the increased wealth made the middle class bigger than the lower class, which would result in a shift of the votes. What do you believe to be the reason for the shift to the right among the voters? --Zero g 16:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a expression among Dutch social workers that poverty can be smelled. There are many families in the Netherlands who can't buy toothpaste, shampoo, meat and can't pay the rent. whole families became homeless because they couldn't pay the rent. It wasn't possible in the 1970s, but it is today. This happens all over the western world. You are right that most of the Dutch society exist out of middle class nowadays, but most of them have to spend all their money for being able to live comfortably.

The shift to the right didn't happen from left-wing political parties to right-wing. The official left-wing has never ever won a majority in the elections, but the right-wing political parties were very moderate by tradition. Christian political parties were conservative in family values but divided in social-economic policy. The liberals were conservative in the social-economic policy and moderate regarding morale issues. The liberals supported the abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage laws of the 1990s and 2000s.

The shift to the right slowly occured through all the political parties. The Labour Party was extreme left-wing in the early 1980s but cradually changed position and supported huge tax cuts in the 1990s. 1992 was an important year for the beginning of strict regulation for immigrants. I know lots about it, because i wrote a paper on the Ghanaian community in the Netherlands. In 1992, a huge criminal organization was discovered who smuggled illegal immigrants into the Netherlands, who could easily become Dutch citizens. These immigrants had to take several kinds of welfare of the government. This got huge press coverage and the illegals were more and more marginalized from 1992 onwards. Morrocan immigrants became fanatic religious and started terrorizing neighbourhoods and haressed girls for dressing too naked.

In the late 1990s, a cultural shift took place, which started with left-wing politicians and left-wing comedians. Suddenly it became acceptable for left-wing comedians to make cruel jokes about immigrants. Left-wing politicians and journalists started giving attention to conservative thinkers with new ideas on ethics and morale. In 2000 and 2001, the integration of foreigners was an important agenda in the politics. The idea was that the integration was no succes and measures had to be taken, like making it is hard as possible for immigrants to come into the Netherlands. Even refugees had to have a very good story with all the paperwork correct in order to become a Dutch citizen.

2001 was the year when Leefbaar Nederland was founded. It was left-wing and wanted to blow the other parties away. What they were lacking was a good leader. They introduced the right-wing Pim Fortuyn, who made it into a huge party. Fortuyn said in january 2002 that the islam is a backward culture. He was ousted from Leefbaar Nederland and started a new political party, LPF. Leefbaar Nederland lost the election with only 2 seats, but LPF came into the parliament with 26 seats. Fortuyn was seen as a nazi by both the left-wing and the right-wing. He was killed by a left-wing extremist, still he could win the elections. At that time in june 2002, the anti right-wing spell was broken. Since 2002, it has become accepted for people to express anti-foreigner sentiments. I know that many left-wingers really don't like this, but it is true. Journalists treat all right-wingers with respect nowadays, even the neo-nazis. NOVA had a half hour long press coverage of the leader of the NVU, which was without any critics regarding his views.--Daanschr 18:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How are neo-NAZI's "right wing"? The NAZI's were socialists.

Are you sure? Who do you think collect Nazi memorabilia this days?

[edit] hmm

"An emphasis on technological innovation and science coupled with a belief in progress, and orientation towards the future, rather than on the past, such as ancestory and presumed glorious episodes in the past and, in spite of institutional and systemetic racial segragation in places such as the US and South Africa under Apartheid, there is relatively less tribalism and other ethnocentrism. [1]"

Does anybody else find this statement to be somewhat subjective at the very least, or completely ridiculous at the worst... I'm not sure any source can really verify that the "West" is any less 'tribal' or especially ethnocentric. If nobody disagrees, then I will leave the part about science and progress but will remove the rest as I am not sure it is verifiable enough to leave in an encyclopedic article. Basser g 01:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Basser. Also the information under section "Beyond art and politics" is very progressive but probably should be moved under the title "Liberalism". However one agrees with what it states, these qualities are rather universal but not nesessarily "Western". One should look at what UK prime minister says and does to understand that stating these qualities as "Western" are at least doubtful. And is G.W.Bush the man of the Western culture? Hmm. Maybe we shall stop generalizing things and shall start to look at people according to their individual merits...


[edit] eh

I know this may sound a bit biased but technically speaking how much of western culture and achievements were made without influence from the Middle East? With the exception of the Grecco-Roman ideals, didn't most of the thinking of the Judeo-Christian values, Scientific advancements, social movements, business practices and other things originate from the Middle East? (think Moorish Spain and the history of European Jews as a couple of examples)

Also, when you think about the New World (the Americas) you can't really ignore some of the influences made by non-western cultures (such as the African techniques in music or Native Amerindian practices in Hispanic cultures) I realized that several people have already mention this about this page. I also believe that some things aren't essentially "western" in regards to the casual sex. Since the history between carious cultures are so intertwined, should this even be an issue or a case for a seperate article?

[edit] Western scientific and technological achievements

I read all the article but the funniest section was "Western scientific and technological achievements". :) My comment is that, because here is not a comedy site, someone should re-write whole article or at least this section.

[edit] Relevance of Cold War in the heading

I am not convinced whether popular historical terminology is relevant in this article, esp. regarding that it is a definite mistake to exclude Central Europe from the West as far as civilisation is concerned. In this sense, even Russia is probably to be considered as part of the West, as it has the definitive Greek/Roman/Christian heritage. The random nature of the political division is well demonstrated by the division of Germany or the separation of Estonia from Finland, which have a fair common share in culture and language.

If the statement is to remain, IMHO there should be a clarification suggesting that from the perspective of this article, there has never been a spectacular *cultural* border between Western and Eastern Europe. A separate article could discuss the finer points between Western (as in civilisation) Capitalism and Communism and their effects on culture. 81.182.216.192 21:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "Beyond art, politics and sexuality" and "Attitudes to sexuality" - These two sections are very subjective

"Beyond art, politics and sexuality" should be removed for the following reasons.

1. This section is very subjective. 2. All cultures believe and want progress and Human rights. 3. All cultures have a strong affiliation to the nuclear family.

Further, the contents of this section suggests that this section was added to reflect an American view point, a view that is not necessarily practiced in the USA. For instance, the very same people who believe in Democracy and freedom are the very same people who practiced slavery and segregation laws (Jim Crow Laws) and it was practiced as recently as 1968, which is less than 40 years from today. If we applied basic math, that is 192 years (from 1776 till 1968) of the 231 of years (from 1776 till 2007), which is, 83% of USA's existence, systematic (constitutional) segregation had been the way of life, which contradicts the principle of democracy, freedom and human rights. Further, prisons, such as Guantanomo bay, where suspects and minors are held without charges against them contradicts the fundamental principle of human rights. These acts are condoned by the people of the USA. Moreover, if we looked at the Greeks and the Romans, they were also a slave owning society, along with the Americans in modern time. Therefore, we observe a pattern in the belief of slave ownership and disregard for human rights among Western cultures. A society that believes in Human rights cannot have these value system as part of their culture and history.

"Attitudes to sexuality" should be removed for the following reasons.

1. Casual sex had always been part of the culture of India as evidenced by "Temples of Love" and literature such as Kama Sutra. Further, Middle Eastern cultures practiced casual sex for a very long time. Probably till the time of Islam.

Many other sections are also very subjective and should be cleansed to meet encyclopedic standards.

==I agree on the suggested removal--the section is is unreferenced, and doubtful to boot. DonSiano 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be split into 2 sections, American culture and Western European culture

I would advise that this article on Western culture should be split into two sections, One section explaining the American culture and the other explaining Western European culture. I say this for the following reasons:

First of all the article does not concretely define what culture is and for most people, the definition of their culture is deeply rooted in their history and how the various episodes in their history has shaped their nation states. However, the Americas and Australia/New Zealand, do not have sufficient history to define a particular culture as their cultures are continuously evolving. The people who live in these new societies cannot really relate to the definition of culture as understood by people who live in established countries of Europe, Middle East, Asia or Africa. Therefore, they have a tendency to associate political system of these nations as their cultural beliefs and we all know through out history, politics of any given nation has changed from time to time. Politics and culture should be separate from one another.

Moreover, this article seem to have been written from an American point of view. The American culture is heavily influenced by the African, Native Indian and Jewish traditions. As a matter of fact, it is safe to say that the African slaves and the Jewish people combined to create what could be considered "American Culture". I have read this article over a period of time and found that for the most part, the African influence on American culture has been greatly ignored, while Yuri Gagarin has been incorporated into the Western World. I find this to be very strange. The only logical reason for this is from my point of view is that, in the USA, skin colour is identified as culture. So the American individual who writes on Western culture, defines culture in terms of Skin colour and thus includes Yuri Gagarin and excludes the African influence. Watching movies such as 300 would give you a better perspective on how an American views various people and their culture and thus an American perspective on Western culture.

This article is like a person of East Indian origin, who is born and raised in North America writing about "Indian Culture". We all know there is one "Indian Culture" in North America and there are many cultures within the political entity of India. A good example of would be a person of Indian Origin from North America visiting South India and asking the locals to cook "Tandoori Chicken". We all know that most people in South India would not know what Tandoori chicken is.

History of a culture is not linked to the soil, but to its people. And majority of US, Canada, N.Z., Australia and a good part of Latin American people's customs, traditions, history and roots are linked to those from Europe. There can have been some varying influences at one side and other from oceans, but main features are shared, as well as cultural basis and sources. You can find characteristic cultural features into US society, or Australian, but the same way you find them in Greece, Southern Italia or Spain, or the same way you find them in Britain.
But on the other hand, one thing is true... African or Native American influences are important in many countries of the New World. But you must also see this African culture has sort of been "acultured" by Western pattern, not fully, but at important rates; they've sort of been assimilated, and just some features coming from African cultures can have remained. Besides, in some countries, like in the US, Canada, Argentina, Australia, racial mixture is not very common, Negroes tend to remain in ghettoes and this makes cultural exchange harder (There are no ghettoes in Canada or Australia. In fact negroes are the least segregated people in Canada, Australia on the other hand has a negligible negroe population.206.108.179.229 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)). Even though, this haven't forbidden most of US' popular music comes or is based on a very strong African substract.
Native American cultures are many, and they have been almost exterminated or strongly isolated in some countries like the US, as well as it happened with aboriginals in Australia. But on the other hands, you find most of Latin American countries, specially those from the Andean region, where indigenous populations and cultures and mixture with them are very important, and have been historically relevant, even in spite of some tendence to Western-centrism, racism and native-phobia, specially supported by creole Latin/Hispanic-origin elites.
And Jewish issue is even more problematic, since Jewish people got "Westernized" at an important degree after centuries of diaspora, they are at a first sight easily assimilable to the rest of population and culture, Christian and specially Presbiterian tradition is derived from Jewish one and contains an important Jewish substract, besides demographically, Jewish are, anyways, a minority, even when an influencial one. Where is direct Jewish influence through out mainstream in US, Argentina or Brazil? It's hard to say.
So the main Western basis for those culture keeps being mantained, except for those Andean regions particularly influenced by Native substract. But even though, most of Native popoulations keep mantaining their own consciousness of a separate culture (which is not an only one), in opposition to mestizoes... more assimilated to Western/Hispanic one.
We could devote a specific part of this article to talk about these influences or characteristics from "New Worlds", not confusing with Native cultures, stablished there from thousands, and having acquired these their influences from settlers as well. But I don't see a strong reason to make a hard distinction among Old Western Culture and New Western Culture, other than these influences that are not uniform, that changes from a country to another. DeepQuasar 06:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My question was: if you can call someone a Westerner, simply because that person was the first space traveler, a monumental achievement in human history, then why can’t communism be a Western European ideology? The fact is that Marx’s theories spread to various countries and they took various forms in different parts of the world should not be overlooked. Further, communism as an ideology is not all that young in comparison to Democracy as an ideology. In fact, social security and universal medicare that exist in most industrialized countries today are principles of Marxsim.

You asked a good question, “Would you say fascism is a pilar of Western culture?” I say yes.

Wikipedia defines Fascism as follows:

“Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.”

Now let us look at the United States as an example. Despite the fact that most Americans would want others to think of America as a country founded on the principles of democracy and freedom, in reality it was a country that was developed on the ideals of slavery, the Jim-Crow laws and racial segregation. We may not like the truth, but I think we should accept the truth as is. The ghettoes in the US developed not because the people of Western European origins in the USA believed in the ideals of democracy, freedom, human rights, equality and justice but because of the tyranny, slavery, savagery, sadism and racism that they imposed on the black population. In 2007, police chase of black men in the USA is controversial not because the white policemen are so concerned for the safety and security of the black people, but because the white policemen’s view of serving and protecting the public is to spread xenophobia and hate towards Black population. A question that is repeatedly asked on the Democratic campaign trail is, “Is America ready for a Black president?”, a question that should never arise in this day and age unless in the post reconstruction era, the white people’s great American past time was to watch and celebrate Black men getting lynched under the pretext that they were trying to steal the White women. As a matter of fact, the Ku Klux Klan, in its hay days, had 15% of America’s population. The shear size of the clan speaks volume about the culture of the Western European people in the USA. So, as we can see, democracy and freedom are mere political concepts and not a cultural concept. For instance let’s say that tomorrow, the US adopted a totalitarian political system, the above described attitudes will not change, because that is the way that the US has developed. These attitudes are what we call culture. I am sure you’d agree that nationalism, militarism, anti-communism, corporatism and populism are pillars of the Western culture. You would also agree that race and race related issues have dominated the American society since its inception. United States also tries to unite people through religion. Born-again Christians are quite main stream in America. Would it be safe to say that American’s idea of Western culture is too be in a state of denial about their true foundations and the culture on the ground. This article has conveniently cherry picked the good things of Western culture and had denied the true of attitudes, practices and beliefs of the people, which most people who live outside North America would consider culture. Eilangko (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Fear in the USA

If we plan on writing articles on Western culture from an American view point, it is also imperative that we explain the "Culture of Fear" that is prevalent in the USA. "Fear of the Black Man", Fear of people living in far of lands and imaginary threats that Americans face on a regular basis has to be defining social norms and thus influencing culture. After all there are references to cold war in this article, isn't it?

[edit] Communism is also a Western European Ideology

The description and subsequent sections ommit reference Communism completeley. As we all know this ideology had great impact on our times. Further, in the "Western scientific and technological inventions" section, reference to first man going to space has been stated as a Westerner. Is Yuri Gagarin a Westerner? Does former Soviet Union fall under the Western World. If USSR can fall under the Western World, then how is it possible to ommit Communism as an ideology as having been originated in the West?

I did make an addition, time ago, mentioning Marxist and Dialectical Materialist traditions or schools, as well as Anarchist and Utopian Socialist ones, as a pilar of Western culture and history during last centuries. You don't find this pilar in Islamic culture, if not borrowed from Europe and then readapted to an Islamic contest. (However, you do find this in South Asian traditions. Some of these might have disappeared in Modern India, but it was the case in Buddhist India.206.108.179.229 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC))
Did you refere to Dialectical Communism? Then, there's a reference to it. But if you referred to oficial Marxism-Leninism Stalinist dochtrine during Stalinist USSR, the Stalinist III International or Komintern, and the influence of this geo-political block in other Western countries, I would doubt this is even a correct interpretation of Dialectical Communism, nor a pilar of Western Culture... It was just a dochtrine, a dogma, as national-socialism or fascism could be... Would you say fascism is a pilar of Western culture? No, it isn't. But Dialectical Communism/Socialism and its many branches (Marxism, Leninism, Bolshevism, Trotskysm, Luxemburguism, New Left, etc.), Anarchism and its many branches, and Critic-Utopian Socialisms (like Thomas Moore's one) are a very relevant pilar of Western culture during most of XIX and XX centuries. The official USSR Stalinist Marxism-Leninism, often wrongly referred to as "Communism" was a geo-political power, as Neo-Liberalism is, but, would you say that's a part of Western culture? I would doubt so. Prove is the fact during most of time in countries with Stalinist systems (official marxism-leninism and Communist Party's burocracy ruling), no relevant development, innovation or advance was made in the fields of Social Sciences and specially in Dialectical Materialism, Scientific Communism and Marxism's traditions, schools and branches. Is that culture? Or geo-politics?
So, I ask for real Communism to be separated from official Stalin's Communism, which is Burocratism, biased political propaganda and a new form of geo-politic imperialism, that made some dammage to Workers' movements a class struggles' advance, and even played and counter-revolutionary or anti-socialist role, through their Communist Parties, in decissive episodes, like 30's Cuban Revolution, 36-37 Spanish Revolution and stuff like that, with the excuse of "smashing Trotskyte anti-soviet trators". They often used revolutionary contests to install similar Communist Party's bureaucratic system into them, like in China, Northern Korea or Vietnam. DeepQuasar 06:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course Yuri Gagarin is not westerner. He would be very surprized if you told him so.--Dojarca (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary Western culture section requires more info

The section "Contemporary Western culture" should be expanded. Does Contemporary Western culture same as the Western culture of the 1500s. I do not think so. It has many elements of African and other cultures. Yet these influences are conveniently avoided in this article.

[edit] Section "Attitudes to sexuality"

This section seems to have been drafted by someone ignorant of history - it would be tedious to go through each point, but not one of them is true. If cites can't be found, the section should be removed. PiCo 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Characteristic features of Western sexual morality:

   * A strict legal requirement for monogamous and consensual marriage[citation needed]
   * An association of sex with love and because of this a belief in the idea of romance, romantic love and sexual love.[citation needed]
   * An expectation of marriage as a source of personal fulfilment through romance, rather than as a practical domestic arrangement[citation needed]

And nowadays, although not in the past:

   * Reduced or no legal enforcement of social bans on adultery
   * More tolerance of homosexuality
   * A more casual attitude toward sex between unmarried persons (one night stands)
   * Greater acceptance of abortion

I agree on the suggested removal. It is unreferenced and does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia. Eilangko 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery and Exploitaion - Culture Vs. Politics

One of the most important concept that has truly been missed out on this article is that the belief in slavery in the Western society. If the Western culture is a by product of Greco-Roman ideals, it must me remembered that these societies were slave owning cultures. Roman economy heavily dependent on slaves. The new world, founded by the Europeans were nothing but slave owning societies and have had strong belief system in slave ownership. As a matter of Americas were founded on slavery. Despite the fact that this article places heavy emphasis on democracy and freedom as the corner stone of the Western culture and Westerner's as defined by this article as people who believe in the institution of democracy and freedom, those of us who live in these Western world very clearly know that the societies of the Americas, especially the United States of America has not developed along the lines of democracy and freedom, rather it has developed on the foundations of slavery and the Jim Crow laws (segregation laws.) Let's look at the example of Barrack Obama running for the US presidency. In year 2007, almost, all media outlets and general conversation among people is that, is America ready for a "Black" president? If the founding culture of United States was democratic, free and if the American society has developed along these ideals, then this question would not arise in Year 2007 either among the general populace or among the media outlets. However, if the foundation is slavery, belief in racial segregation and an entire society has developed along the lines of slavery and belief in segregation laws, then this would be the only question that would be repeatedly asked by the general poluace and media outlets in Year 2007. This clearly underscores the strong belief in slavery and exploitation of others among Westerners. Not only historical references point to strong belief in the institution of slavery, but modern social attitudes among Westerners point to strong beliefs in the exploitation of others. The social attitudes and belief systems in a country is called the culture of that country and ideas such as democracy, communism and capitalism are political ideologies. Thus, I believe, we should carefully review this article and try to explain the Western "Culture" and not the Western "Politics". Eilangko 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am Removing the section titled "Attitudes to sexuality"

I am removing the section titled "Attitudes to sexuality". This section is unreferenced and does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia. Further, this section does not contrast the Western culture with other cultures and completely ignores human history. Most importantly though, this section has been in this article for a long time and would deceive people who read this article. Eilangko 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing a sentence

This sentence, "Therefore, the impact of "modernisation" and "modern" technology may not merely be "scientific" (that is, physical) but may possibly be closely linked with a certain culture, that of the West, such that without such technology, Western culture today would have been dramatically different from how it is known in actual historical and contemporary times." is unacceptable. It seems to be presenting a theory ("may possibly...) and is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. It is also ungrammatical or self-contradictory--"today"..."contemporary times. I'm therefore deleting it.DonSiano 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Western Culture"

Isn't this somewhat impossible to define? It seems a bit hypocritical to classify capitalism and free trade as part of "Western culture," but then completely ignore totalitarianism (which was also a Western creation). North Korea, Vietnam, Saddam's Iraq, Syria and Saddat's Egypt all have either Nationalist Secular governments or a Communist government - all of these are Western government models. If we are going to say countries like Japan are Western because they are industrialized, then it's only fair that we include all fascist and communist states as Western as well?? After all, Fascism and Communism are both Western idealogies. The term is further complicated by the fact that Southwest Asia and North Africa would have both been considered "Western" during classical antiquity, even though today Westerners have disowned them both as "Middle Eastern." Similarly, Russia would have been considered "Western" all the way through the 19th century, even though today it has also been disowned as a "Non-Western" culture. Or an even more interesting example would be the Jews. The Jews, prior to the 20th century, were always seen as an "Other," yet today they are now considered "Western." I think this article does a fine job at cherry-picking the glorious aspects of Western culture, which, by no means, should they be belitted. Western civilization has been by far the most pivotal civilization in shaping the modern world, but it seems that this thread does a very good job at pretending "Eastern" cultures are irreconcilably different from the modern world, and so the only way they can modernize is by becoming "Western" (which is clearly a lie, and Japan is NOT Western). I could believe that South Korea and the Phillipines are Western. But you aren't going to be able to convince me that Japan, India, etc. are Western simply because they are industrial powers. Simply because a nation has been integrated into the world economy and actively trades with Western powers doesn't mean that they are culturally Western. As a side note, one of the pioneers of the MRI was an Iranian American, so it seems bizarre how that could be considered a "Western" invention. I don't necessarily think Western inventions are products of the culture, so much as they are a product of the wealth and education that have emerged within Western society ever since the Industrial Revolution. Obviously, most inventions prior to the Industrial Revolution took place in the East - that doesn't mean there was an intrinsic factor within Eastern cultures that allowed learning and innovation to thrive. Shouldn't the entire inventions section be separated into a different article focused on inventions within the Western World? Or an article on Western accomplishments? Placing it under a "cultural" article seems deceiving and inappropriate. Further on that... All European alphabet systems (Greek, Cryllic, Latin) are descendents of the Phoenician alphabet ("Middle Eastern" alphabet), and the European number system is of Indian origin ("Eastern" number system). Western innovation, from its very foundation, has been heavily influenced by the pre-Industrial Revolution accomplishments of Asia and North Africa. This article fails to touch on that. The point being, it is misleading to consider innovativeness and the hunger for knowledge as "cultural values." The hunger for knowledge is fundamental to the human condition, regardless of which "culture" one is a part of. 68.43.58.42 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

--On your "side note" on MRI, Damadian, whom I think you are referring to, was born in New York, of Armenian descent, educated in America and did his ground breaking work there, and is a Christian. Other contributors, two of whom won the Nobel Prize in 2002 for it, were all also Westerners. Its first manufacture, sales and use all took place in the West as well. Thus, it seems only reasonable to me to put it in a list of Western accomplishments. As for your other remarks, this is only an encyclopedia, which certainly requires an entry on Western culture. Like many articles in wikipedia it can be improved.DonSiano 18:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a Western culture article would be very valid, but I don't necessarily think Western accomplishments and Western culture ought to be conjoined into one article. Regardless of Damadian's ethnicity, Armenians are still a Middle Eastern people (his parents are from Iran I believe, even if they aren't ethnically Persian) and practice Eastern Christianity (just like the Slavs, Coptic Egyptians, Ethiopians, Assyrians, many Palestinians, etc.). Eastern Christianity is primarily practiced by "Non-Westerners," and has essentially been disowned by Western society, with the exception of the Greeks. However, that wasn't even my point. The purpose of my post wasn't to criticize or belittle Western accomplishments. I just don't think it is valid for us to assume that accomplishments are a product of cultural influences, because Damadian, who was simply an example, comes from a completely different heritage. It seems misleading to have accomplishments tied in with a specific culture. Wouldn't it be more legitimate to give Western accomplishments a separate article of its own? Or if one article is preferred, then this article should probobly be titled "Western Civilization" rather than "Western Culture." Similarly, no one would ever refer to the Islamic world, for example, as a distinct "culture." Islam in China is certainly different from Islam in Saudi Arabia. I suppose accomplishments would also be better fit under Western World than Western Culture as well. 68.43.58.42 22:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed the term from Americans to White Americans

Section: Music, art, story-telling and architecture

I changed the following sentence from:

"Many forms of popular music have been derived from African-Americans' folklore and music during 20th and 19th centuries, initially by themselves, but later played and further developed by Americans..."

To:

"Many forms of popular music have been derived from African-Americans' folklore and music during 20th and 19th centuries, initially by themselves, but later played and further developed by White Americans..."

It seems to be logical to change it from Americans to White Americans as this section seem indicate that African-Americans are not part of the Western culture, however, the music that they developed is. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between Americans who are part of the Western society and who are not.Eilangko (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added the sentence below to give a better picture to an audience, who may read this article. Since this article has been written from an American perspective, which I see avoids explaining the Western culture and places great importance on political systems such as democracy may mislead people from other parts of the world in trying to understand what Western culture is. Therefore, the sentence below would give others an insight into the psyche of the authors of this article and what their definition of Western culture is.

From an American point of view, the Western culture does not include, people who have some level of African, Asian or other non-European ancestry, except in the case, where a person with such ancestry may visually be appear to be closer to "European-Looking."Eilangko (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modified the intro

I changed the following sentence in the introduction From:

"...American culture, materialism, industrialism, capitalism, commercialism, hedonism, imperialism or modernism."

To:

"...American culture, materialism, industrialism, capitalism, commercialism, hedonism, imperialism, communism, Nazism, fascism, racism or modernism."

The article conveniently avoids communist ideology, the Nazi ideology, Fascist ideology and the high level of racism present in Western societies.

[edit] Western pop culture

It would be useful to have a hybrid of this article and popular culture. Currently, there's no such article as Western popular culture, and yet there are many volumes of secondary sources written on the topic. -Harmil (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] redirect from civlisation, western civilization, and western civilisation

I give up. Entering civilisation redirects you to civilization which entry begins with the statement, "A civilization or civilisation is..." This statement says to me that the two words are alternative spellings for a common term. The article goes on to use both spellings throughout without any differentiation of their meaning. In fact the contexts of the different spellings reinforce the implication that they are simply alternate spellings. I'm guessing that the variations reflect multiple contributors from US and British commonwealth editing the article.

O.K. So why then when I enter western civilization am I redirected to western culture while western civilisation redirects me to western world. The fourth paragraph of the western culture entry then goes on to make a statement, "The concept of western culture is generally linked to the classical definition of Western world." The reference to "classical definition of Western world" is a link to a curently non-existent section of the western world entry. I am now left wondering whether western civilisation actually is not a variant spelling of western civilization, but rather does actually refer to western world, whereas western civilization refers only to the western culture. Grapeguy (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty certain they don't have different meanings. Be bold :)! I just changed western civilization to redirect to western world so that its consistent. But I think it might make sense to instead point them both (spelt with "s" and "z") to a disambiguation page (or turn them into such). See also western society. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit of western civilization. Of course, I was being ironic about the idea of different meanings. I agree completely with that proposal to disambiguate western civilization in exactly the same way as western society (which I personally don't see as ambiguous as western civilization). Although things would be much improved by a disambiguation page, I think there is still a need to edit the "classical definition of Western world" reference so that it doesn't link to a missing section. what is the "classical" definition of Western world as opposed to some other meaning? I could not find the term "classical meaning" or even "classical" anywhere in the western world entry. Amazingly, I couldn't even find the word "classic" in the entry. Grapeguy (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I took the easy route and just unlinked that bit. Of course it would be nice to have an explanation of what is meant, but if we don't even know what is meant, we're not going to be giving it, are we :). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And I just changed the two four Western Civilisations into disambiguation pages, pointing to culture and world.Sean Heron (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for the welcome. I think these entries have had so much editing and so many disputes and changes that everyone has gotten lost. I don't know that I can find and fix all the problems, but maybe I'll uncover and report some issues as I go along. Grapeguy (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socrates

In the definition it is said that the origins of western culture are feudalism and Christianity. If such, why the image of Socrates here?--Dojarca (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about Western Europe, not all of Europe being West of the Eastern World as the Greeks perceived themselves. Classical (Greco-Roman) and Western Civilization are two distinct cultures. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] western

The western culture refers to the North Americas, not Europe. Therefore, I will be updating the 'lede' paragraph as we speak. Thank you!Viper55 (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's bad enough we have all of Europe suffering the contention that they belong to Western culture, when it fact it was meant as Western European culture, which is very different from Central and Eastern European cultures under the dominion of the kaisers, czars, and Seljuk Turks. Now we have another new contender for Western Culture! America! It may be a member, but it is not the core of Western culture. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

The opening text of this § is bolixed. Also this talk needs to be archived. Lycurgus (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Random comment placed with proper sectioning

The "Western achievements" section opens with the words "A distinctive feature of the Western culture is its focus on science and technology".... the section proceeds to examine only the scientific and technological achievements of the west. Since the section only concerns science and technology, the section should be renamed as to reflect that. The current section title suggests that the section will account for, say, artistic achievements or philosophical achievements in addition to science.