- This topic has 8 voices and 27 replies.
-
Posts
-
So does “Western Civilization” mean culturally or geographically? I think initially it was culturally but now as we have become global, it is more geographic.
Wouldnt it be the opposite. It was geographic but as the world becomes more global it is cultural?
Yeah I was going to say – the opposite. Western values have been dispersed to different areas of the world; 1000 years ago they were centered solely in Europe perhaps some of the area surrounding the Mediterranean coast. At that time Western values would have been in large contrast to what was going on in Japan. Now look at Japan….
The best reply to this query is timeless: “It would be a good idea”. Presumably spoken by some eastern hash smoking hippie looking for redemption for Western Civilization, and wondering why it did not work.
The best reply to this query is timeless: “It would be a good idea”. Presumably spoken by some eastern hash smoking hippie looking for redemption for Western Civilization, and wondering why it did not work.
Huh? I dont get where you are going with this. Can you expand on it. I fail to see how “it would be a good idea” fits into defining Western Civilisation.
That was Gandhi's retort when asked what he thought about Western Civilization. Of course he was just a bit biased since his nation was subjugated by it. I also think it is quite accurate. Western Civilization is a generalization that is just a tool for historians when dealing with the epochs of History. There is literally no Western Civilization only segments of related histories ranging from Israel, to the Greeks, to the Romans, to Western Medeival Europe, and then the Americas.
Western Civilization is a generalization that is just a tool for historians when dealing with the epochs of History. There is literally no Western Civilization only segments of related histories ranging from Israel, to the Greeks, to the Romans, to Western Medeival Europe, and then the Americas.
Does this then equally apply to defining other world civilizations as well? Say Chinese, Eastern, African, and Latin American. They are all just as abstract in the end are they not?
I would have to say yes. Histories should stand alone, but it is quite understandable to link them thematically where they intersect.
I would have to say yes. Histories should stand alone, but it is quite understandable to link them thematically where they intersect.
OK, now I get where you are coming from. I have to agree that you make a good point. Civilization is an abstract concept, but I still think there are defining characteristics that set the various civilizations apart and thus the definitions themselves are useful tools when discussing societies and cultures whether historic or contemporary.
I love this definition: That (Western Civilization) would be a good idea. Can't remember the mouth that sprouted it? 😀
I think that the concept of Western Civilisation is to be developed into two main aspects: geography and culture.Geography because it developed in a specific area: the Mediterranean basin first with Greek and Roman civilisations, then englobing West Europe with Germanic civilisations, spreading to Central and East Europe (Russia), then later to new conquered territories.Culture because all these nations and their following expansions (America, Australia and all other “Caucasian” colonised territories) share the same fundamental western values or philosophy: democracy, separation of powers, Christianity, etc.Considering Japan, South Korea and other democratic nations , I would be more careful: values, religion, politics, all aspects of civilisation are different. Their roots or History are totally different but respectable. Varnish is not the painting.
I would not count Russia as Western. They have always looked more to the east than the west until about the the time of Napoleon or so. There have been spurts of “westernization” Peter and Catherine the Great come to mind, but they have always been more Eastern oriented.I have to agree with with regards to the Asian nations. Any westernization there is at best skin deep. They have skimmed the cream of western methods if you will.
I was thinking about an Indo-European heritage that's why I included Russia and other Slavic people. However I still can't present evidences about this, just a assumption.About Russia, they just emerged from decades of Soviet rules, it needs time to get rid of some habits and accept a lower status but you can count on their come back ! (not to mention their war in Chechnya)
Their eastern orientation predates communism although the communists did also pursue traditional tsarist political and regional goals. Notice their recent re-embrasure of authoritarianism. I know people that say there is just something about Russians that they want to be told what to do.
An interesting program about a definition of what made our western culture original(refresh your German and/or French language)http://videos.arte.tv/en/videos/le_dessous_des_cartes-4071500.html
