Religion in future conworlds

[Travis B.]

I'd like to be sure I'm on the same page as you...I always assumed that "the Western World" includes all those countries which used to be colonies of Western nations. Does your statement include those in the "relatively secular" view?

thank you for clarifying.

What? That would mean basically the entire world, with just a handful of exceptions! No, I mean "most of Europe, with the outskirts being kinda fuzzy within Europe, plus the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel".

So...Europe + Israel + the Anglosphere, minus Africa, basically?

Thats a little scary to me -- it feels like its saying that, nowhere in South America or Africa, or even India itself, counts as a Western nation.

There is a difference between Western and developed ─ e.g. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are developed nations, but are not Western nations.

[keenir]

What? That would mean basically the entire world, with just a handful of exceptions! No, I mean "most of Europe, with the outskirts being kinda fuzzy within Europe, plus the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel".

So...Europe + Israel + the Anglosphere, minus Africa, basically?

Thats a little scary to me -- it feels like its saying that, nowhere in South America or Africa, or even India itself, counts as a Western nation.

There is a difference between Western and developed ─ e.g. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are developed nations, but are not Western nations.

Okay, that makes sense...but what about India and, say, Brazil or South Africa? If Israel counts as a Western nation, why not them?

[Travis B.]

So...Europe + Israel + the Anglosphere, minus Africa, basically?

Thats a little scary to me -- it feels like its saying that, nowhere in South America or Africa, or even India itself, counts as a Western nation.

There is a difference between Western and developed ─ e.g. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are developed nations, but are not Western nations.

Okay, that makes sense...but what about India and, say, Brazil or South Africa? If Israel counts as a Western nation, why not them?

The main difference is really that the core Anglosphere nations are more culturally aligned with Europe than other Western-colonized nations precisely because the indigenous populations were more thoroughly wiped out there and thus European settlers replaced them to a higher degree than elsewhere. India, Latin America, and South Africa are not as culturally European as the core Anglosphere nations as a result (except for arguably some cases such as Argentina).

[keenir]

There is a difference between Western and developed ─ e.g. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are developed nations, but are not Western nations.

Okay, that makes sense...but what about India and, say, Brazil or South Africa? If Israel counts as a Western nation, why not them?

The main difference is really that the core Anglosphere nations are more culturally aligned with Europe than other Western-colonized nations precisely because the indigenous populations were more thoroughly wiped out there and thus European settlers replaced them to a higher degree than elsewhere. India, Latin America, and South Africa are not as culturally European as the core Anglosphere nations as a result (except for arguably some cases such as Argentina).

{facetiousness}

I think thats the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that the Spaniards did a bad job of getting rid of the natives.

{ /facetiousness}

[zompist]

Okay, that makes sense...but what about India and, say, Brazil or South Africa? If Israel counts as a Western nation, why not them?

"Western" has always been pretty fuzzy. I think its major uses are "Western nations vs. Communism" (during the Cold War), and "Western Eurasia vs. East Asia" (for religion and art). Russia quietly switches sides between these uses.

In terms of art, religion, and literature, I'd say Latin America is Western, but you can certainly argue it's a mixture of Western and indigenous culture.

It's common to consider India, like China or the Muslim world, an entire civilization... it's not really doing it a favor to throw it into "the West".

For South Africa, I dunno, I'd be curious how Black South Africans see themselves. I'd be a little surprised if it wasn't more "African" than "Western."

[Travis B.]

I think thats the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that the Spaniards did a bad job of getting rid of the natives.

They did a very good job of getting rid of the natives in the Caribbean or Argentina, on one hand, but look at Mexico on the other hand ─ the indigenous people there were not nearly wiped out in the same fashion as in the core Anglosphere or in the Caribbean or Argentina. Even though disease and slavery did kill many of the indigenous people there, there were far more who lived on to influence the Mexico of today.

[bradrn]

For South Africa, I dunno, I'd be curious how Black South Africans see themselves. I'd be a little surprised if it wasn't more "African" than "Western."

Speaking as someone who’s visited several times (most recently last year), I’m not sure I’d call South Africa ‘Western’, but I couldn’t exactly call it ‘non-Western’ either. There’s definitely a big split between the white and black populations — I suspect that many whites would call it Western, while many black wouldn’t. Culturally speaking, the whites are 100% Western (albeit more amongst the English-speakers than the Afrikaaners), while the blacks have retained a lot of their traditional culture. The coloureds* are somewhere in the middle: somewhat Westernised, plus a lot of Indian and Islamic influence.

(That being said, my personal experience has been almost exclusively with my (white, Jewish) family members who I stay with when visiting, so take statements with a grain of salt.)

* The third group in South Africa’s usual racial groupings: descended from several sources, mostly Indians, Malays and the indigenous Khoi.

[Travis B.]

Aren't the Coloureds mostly Afrikaans-speaking (contrary to the stereotype of Afrikaans being a White people's language)?

[bradrn]

Aren't the Coloureds mostly Afrikaans-speaking (contrary to the stereotype of Afrikaans being a White people's language)?

Yes, but they’re not Afrikaaners.

[Travis B.]

Aren't the Coloureds mostly Afrikaans-speaking (contrary to the stereotype of Afrikaans being a White people's language)?

Yes, but they’re not Afrikaaners.

Of course.

[keenir]

Okay, that makes sense...but what about India and, say, Brazil or South Africa? If Israel counts as a Western nation, why not them?

"Western" has always been pretty fuzzy.
In terms of art, religion, and literature,.
it's not really doing it a favor to throw it into "the West".

For the most part, I generally assume* "Western" to be sorta like how you described Chinese civilization in the CCK (and, disclaimer, this is me typing this from memory)...that, regardless of how much the government may change over the course of time, there are certain elements of literature, martial arts, and such, that will change very very little, and will carry through forwards or backwards in time. Along these lines, are things that the feelings towards them may change, but they are still regarded as major steps that were important in the development of their civilization -- ie, the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire.

* = a further disclaimer: I never really sat myself down and tried to analyze my assumptions or presumptions of Westernness and where if anywhere its borders and marches were...til now.

[Raphael]

For the record, I agree with zompist's latest comment, and I'm a bit surprised that someone would seriously suggest India as an example of a Western nation. If India is Western, who isn't?

[WeepingElf]

For the record, I agree with zompist's latest comment, and I'm a bit surprised that someone would seriously suggest India as an example of a Western nation. If India is Western, who isn't?

The only way in which India could be considered a "Western" nation is linguistic: the majority of the people of India speak Indo-European languages. But then, Iran and Afghanistan would also be "Western" nations. And of course, Russia, too. And Latin America. This only shows that being "Western" has nothing to do with speaking an IE language. After all, Finns, Estonians, Hungarians, Maltese and Basques are Western people, too.

[Raphael]

The only way in which India could be considered a "Western" nation is linguistic: the majority of the people of India speak Indo-European languages.

I think keenir's point was more like that India used to be a colony of a Western power. But, well, almost every place was.

[Travis B.]

For the record, I agree with zompist's latest comment, and I'm a bit surprised that someone would seriously suggest India as an example of a Western nation. If India is Western, who isn't?

The only way in which India could be considered a "Western" nation is linguistic: the majority of the people of India speak Indo-European languages. But then, Iran and Afghanistan would also be "Western" nations. And of course, Russia, too. And Latin America. This only shows that being "Western" has nothing to do with speaking an IE language. After all, Finns, Estonians, Hungarians, Maltese and Basques are Western people, too.

Of course, one could argue that the Slavic-speaking parts of Russia are "Western".

[Travis B.]

The only way in which India could be considered a "Western" nation is linguistic: the majority of the people of India speak Indo-European languages.

I think keenir's point was more like that India used to be a colony of a Western power. But, well, almost every place was.

Which means that simply being a former colony of a "Western" power is not a good reason to consider someplace "Western".

[keenir]

The only way in which India could be considered a "Western" nation is linguistic: the majority of the people of India speak Indo-European languages.

I think keenir's point was more like that India used to be a colony of a Western power. But, well, almost every place was.

Ehh, more like that, India used to be a colony, at which point England downloaded all England's history, literature, etc into Indian education ...and, yes, a lot of the world was at one point a colony of a Western Power (though then we have cases like Alaska, colony of Russia, which didn't get much of the Russian education system or culture, aside from Orthodox missionaries)

So, as I delve deeper into my old assumptions about The West & what those assumptions add up to, I find a few categories. However, for simplicity sake - and at risk of igniting a firestorm - I'm using a definition that includes any population exchange*, and thus excludes when a country puts up a few coastal forts (ie Portugal in India) but has little to no involvement with locals beyond that.

Yes, I know there are other movements of populations, such as what resulted in Cambodia's and Indonesia's Chinese populations. but as I said before, I've only recently begun hammering out the wrinkles of these thoughts and their meanings.

* = even before Independence, Indians could move to England and South Africa, for example; at least after independence, Maori could visit the UK (possibly New England pre-Independence)

Countries where colonization was either never attempted or was tried & failed for one reason or another (ie, Korea - normally a client state, aside from early 20th Century)

Countries where colonization was never attempted. (ie, Thailand, Easter Island)

Countries where colonization was successful and its teachings (see above - literature, etc) were retained in independence. (ie, USA, India, Mexico, Chile)
.......{when I say they were retained...if I ask my Mexican cousin-in-law who it was that tilted at windmills, he'd be able to answer}

Countries where colonization was successful, but its teachings were destroyed once independence was attained. (ie, ?)

...a subsection of that might be when populations from two places are taken to a new land (such as Pitcairn Island)...though I don't know how much knowledge from either population was retained in the new community, hence my placing it as a subsection here rather than of an earlier category.


...and a lot of times, when I see people talking about Western democracies, India is usually at the front of the list, alongside the UK, and US.

[keenir]

I think I, years ago, saw a definition of Western Civilization that didn't rely on shared or inherited values, literatures, sciences*, or anything else...

it was simply this: Western Civilization, like any other developed Civilization, is one which has made signifigant progress towards reducing and wherever possible, eliminating parasites and disease from its lands.

Now, granted, this was long before COVID hit and the US nearly lost our ability to count as qualifying under that definition.



* = like how Knorosov(sp) used the same systems of analysis as his American colleagues to crack the Mayan glyphs.

[xxx]

globalization is westernization...
virtually the whole world is in the west...
in french, "être à l'ouest" (to be in the West) is to be disoriented (dis-oriented, logical)...
globalization is in fact a great disorientation...

[keenir]

globalization is westernization...

well, China will be thrilled to hear that - what with their increasing influence and work projects in Central Asia and in Africa; soon, China will be Western by virtue of being global, rather than depending on other definitions.

in french, "être à l'ouest" (to be in the West) is to be disoriented (dis-oriented, logical)...
globalization is in fact a great disorientation...

if I had to guess, I'd wager that thats a legacy of the much-hated Cathars living in the west (granted, the southwest) of the country, or the Spaniards living in the west.

either that or its the shock of France becoming west, when the Popes returned to Italy.