[Suska]

I don't know what your definition of the West is but I always took it for North America and Western Europe with Australia and Scandinavia thrown in, and you see spots that seem to be an exception you might consider how Europeans have effected for example South Africa and Japan.

[Smertios]

I don't know what your definition of the West is but I always took it for North America and Western Europe with Australia and Scandinavia thrown in, and you see spots that seem to be an exception you might consider how Europeans have effected for example South Africa and Japan.

My definition of Western is described in this thread: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=135513&start=160

I'll quote myself anyway:

Of course I consider Britain to be part of the West. I'm just pointing out flaws in that guy's argument. Saying that the region in which the Western Culture flourished is not part of the West is probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard in this forum so far. And i have read Russkie's posts

The West is defined as a cultural region that expanded due to a few different reasons at different times. The West started as the region of Mediterranean culture. Back then, the West expanded due to the expansion of powerful Mediterranean civilizations, such as the Greeks, the Romans, the Phoenicians, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Berbers etc. Back then, the boundaries of the West were still the areas inhabited by the so called "barbarians" (and, in this context, barbarian is a good approximation for not-western): Germans, Celts, Slavs, Balts etc. And yes, the West expanded the most during ancient times due to the Roman conquests.

When Rome was in its biggest state, they started "westernizing" the barbarians that were under their rule. When Christianity was made official in both Roman Empires, the Roman "westernization" became almost a synonym to christianization. That spread Christianity through all of Europe and, after the fall of Rome, such process was continued by the Catholic Church. Christianity - and, therefore, the West - was expanded to other areas of Europe, reaching as far as Scandinavia, the Urals and Siberia. The Byzantine Empire continued strong after the fall of Rome, so, back then, most of the Middle East and all of Northern Africa was still Western.

With the fall of Constantinople and the Arab, Turkic and other Islamic expansions, the Middle East and Northern Africa left the West to become their own cultural region. Christianity and all its values (most of which were inherited from the ancient Mediterranean civilizations) remained strong in Europe and, after the Reconquista, the Iberian Peninsula was kept within the West.

The third wave of Western expansion came with the Age of Discovery. British, Spaniards, French, Portuguese, Dutch, Danes, Russians etc created global empires, expanding their culture and, as a consequence, the West. Several immigrants and colonists were sent into the Americas. In some cases, the immigrant populations completely replaced the previous native ones. In others, miscegenation took place, with all mixed children being raised within their fathers' culture (in most cases, Mestizos were the product of an European male mating with a native female). All of the Americas became the second Western area. The same happened in Oceania and, to an extent, in South Africa (though the latter left the West definitely after 1994, when their Sub-Saharan identity was reinforced).

One can claim that considering Latin America Western is not appropriate, otherwise one would have to consider all of Africa Western as well, considering they were part of several (European) Global Empires, in several places the languages were replaced and all of them were converted into Christianity. While that is an interesting argument, once certainly can notice the differences between Africa and Latin America. Colonization in the Americas lasted 300 years. In Africa, that only lasted a few decades, in the 19th and 20th centuries. Most Africans still speak native languages and very few of them actually have any European blood at all. The Americas (before the huge immigrational wave in the 19th century) were a Mestizo region. Africa never became a Mullato continent at all. So the people there have always preferred to keep their own identity. I seriously doubt a black South African sees Britain or the Netherlands as their "Motherland", similar to how Chileans, Mexicans etc see Spain.

And the fourth (and last) Western Expansion took place mainly due to a few reasons. First of all, there was the Enlightenment. By this time, Western expansion started losing its meaning as Christianization. Now Westernizing would be the same as spreading western values and Western knowledge. That is, this was the expansion of Western philosophy, Western science, Western technology etc. With the Protestant Reformation and the fall of Feudalism, the Church/Clergy and the Nobility lost much of their power. That led to the famous process of enclosure that took place in Britain. This created capitalism. And capitalism created a new (bourgeois) elite. That led to the rise of modern democracy and the liberal revolutions. So, besides all Western values, ideals, knowledge etc that was in expansion already, "westernizing" came to include the spread of democracy, capitalism and liberalism as well. Everything became westernized. Not only christianity was spread to all over the world, but also the Latin Alphabet, English language as the World's lingua franca, Western weapons (just look at the case with the Satsuma Rebellion in Japan), Western clothing etc.

This last expansion didn't really make the West larger, though. It simply made sure that western ideas were implanted in the entire world. With the rise of communism and the Cold War, one could argue that Eastern Europe left the West to form their own cultural region, with their own distinct set of values. But honestly, I consider that to be bullsh*t. One century is not enough to create a new worldwide culture out of nothing, like that. It was an attempt. And had the Soviet Union and most communist states continued existing for a few more centuries, that would probably have happened. But nowadays, despite all its flaws and differences, Eastern Europe and Northern Asia are still quite Western, in all meanings of the word (well, perhaps except the geographical one, but one can always turn the globe a few degrees in any direction lol).

Now, it is possible that we are going into a fifth phase of Western "expansion", though I suppose that contraction would be a better term here. Since the end of the Cold War, I think it is quite obvious that the world has turned into a multipolar world. And, as such, several new powers are emerging. The existence of multiple Western powers haven't ever broken the Western World, but now this is different, since Western and non-Western powers are allying freely, thanks to globalization (which itself was a product of the fourth wave of Western expansion). So it is possible that the West will be reduced to simply Western Europe and Northern America in the near future (and by this, one should read 'a few centuries'), but I can't say for sure. the SU fell, but Russia sure took its place. Central Asia is culturally closer to the Middle East (one of the factors influencing the Middle East expansion was the turkic expansion, after all), but that can change, depending on the context. In Latin America, Brazil is growing quickly and so are all other stable and semi-stable nations. It is possible that Latin America will become a separate geo-cultural region in the near future as well. And last, but not least, Australia and New Zealand are getting closer to Asian Powers, like China and India, and further from Europe and the US. So it is possible that they will establish their own cultural region in Oceania as well. But that seriously depend on Australia's competence in becoming a global power. Australia is a huge country, but they chose a different path than Brazil, China and India. Instead of becoming a country with a huge population (and, thus, a huge GDP), they became a country with a controlled population (and, by consequence, a huge GDP per capita). So, while they don't really have as much money as Brazil, India or China, the quality of life there is several times bigger. If they manage to have their population (and GDP and, as a consequence, their regional influence) expand, they can become a regional power quickly and a global one as well.

Anyway, that is how the West is (or should be) defined. The West is a cultural region, not a genetic one. If one wants to separate the countries into regions with genetically similar peoples, he should use the proper terms. A Western country is not the same as a Caucasian country. And the Caucasian World is not the same as the Western World (the former even included non-Western regions, like Northern Africa and the Middle East). But of course, if the idea is to refer specifically to Western nations that have a Caucasian majority, then I see no problem with calling it the "Caucasian Western World", as it will certainly be the most appropriate term.

[Rugoz]

lol according to that map, most of the West is quite corrupt, actually. Trying to map corruption based on culture is a terrible idea.

Why is it a terrible idea? You seriously think mentality is not related to corruption?

[Rugoz]

...delete?....

[Kman]

Funny how the whitest nations are also the least corrupt eh?

[Smertios]

Why is it a terrible idea? You seriously think mentality is not related to corruption?

Yes, I think corruption is not related to mentality. In the end of the day, all human beings are still quite similar machines, working pretty much the same way. So, even if the collective mentality can influence corruption levels in one specific community, I doubt it is something that is intrinsically linked to culture. I think everything points towards the states with the most stable and long-lasting institutions being less corrupt. On the same time, states with unstable political institutions are more corrupt. That easily explains why Chile is less corrupt than Brazil, but not less corrupt than Sweden, for example...

Trying to relate corruption to culture, while a valid hypothesis, lacks enough reasoning and argumentation for testing. Especially considering it is not exactly what common sense shows. Much cultures that are intrinsically as Western as others are more or less corrupt, depending on how politically stable they have been through their history. Compare Argentina to the US, for example. There is a 4.2 difference between their indexes, yet they are roughly just as Western as each other. I'd even say that Argentina is more Western than the US, given that African culture didn't influence the Argentinian one as much as it did to the American. Almost all American popular music genres have its roots in African traditions, like blues, jazz, R&B, rock etc. But when you compare all coups, military juntas, constitutions and revolutions that have been there in Argentinian history to a very stable American politically history, it is clear why one would tend towards corruption more than the other...

And trying to relate corruption to genetics, like Kman is doing, is quite laughable. Not only he is ignoring all other factors, he is also using an argument that has been completely discarded in the entire scientific and academic communities. I could counter such argument, but I won't, because we are not really in the 1930s anymore, so I shouldn't really have to to show why such arguments are bad... lol

Funny how the whitest nations are also the least corrupt eh?

Aren't you ashamed that the entire scientific community is already laughing at all racist pseudo-scientific arguments already? Do you really have to come up with it in a public forum? Especially after claiming that you were not a racist once and being yellow-carded for racist multiple comments...

Not to mention that your argument there is flawed, considering there are cases of countries that are whiter than others being more corrupt. Argentina is more corrupt than the US, for example... Or all of Northern Africa, for that matter...

[Kman]

Aren't you ashamed that the entire scientific community is already laughing at all racist pseudo-scientific arguments already?

No I dont really give a shit what those payed marxist shills think.

[Rugoz]

Yes, I think corruption is not related to mentality. In the end of the day, all human beings are still quite similar machines, working pretty much the same way. So, even if the collective mentality can influence corruption levels in one specific community, I doubt it is something that is intrinsically linked to culture. I think everything points towards the states with the most stable and long-lasting institutions being less corrupt. On the same time, states with unstable political institutions are more corrupt. That easily explains why Chile is less corrupt than Brazil, but not less corrupt than Sweden, for example...

Well maybe institutions are unstable exactly because people tolerate corruption. Italy is a good example. The north of italy is among the most richest regions in europe, its a democracy and democratic rules are being respected (changing the rules is not illegal if you get the necessary majorities). A politician like berlusconi, or similar ones, would not stand the slightest chance of being elected in my country. The same goes for political parties like communists, fascists, conservative catholics and other freak parties (a reason why the system in italy is unstable). You want to tell me voting behaviour is not related to culture/mentality?

Democratic culture is also culture.

[Modernjan]

Yes, I think corruption is not related to mentality.

Then you need to get around more. I've lived in three countries and clearly noticed different mentalities that make people from some nations more prone to corruption than others. Of course it works both ways: bad mentality causes bad institutions and bad institutions cause bad mentality. Bad mentality can be ironed out but that takes time, a lot of time.

[Maas]

Funny how the whitest nations are also the least corrupt eh?

Thats because we call it lobby groups and legalized it that they can make contributions to the political parties.

[Quantum]

Funny how the whitest nations are also the least corrupt eh?

And what skin colour do the corrupt elites of Latin America have, Kman?

[Kman]

And what skin colour do the corrupt elites of Latin America have, Kman?

And what skin color does the people have who let them have this power?

[Social_Critic]

The corrupt elite which leads Venezuela today is quite a mixture of ethnic groups. Their sole common denominator is being Chavez followers and worshippers. As I explained in previous posts, these guys are neo-fascists wrapped in a populist carapace, corrupt as hell. Their theft will be known as the second theft of the century, after the one in Russia.

[Bubba]

The corrupt elite which leads Venezuela today is quite a mixture of ethnic groups. Their sole common denominator is being Chavez followers and worshippers. As I explained in previous posts, these guys are neo-fascists wrapped in a populist carapace, corrupt as hell. Their theft will be known as the second theft of the century, after the one in Russia.

This is a severe distortion: Chavez' opponents are just as corrupt as he is and Venezuela was just as unequal, crime ridden and poor before Chavez took office, that's the whole reason he ever won elections in the first place (it's pathetic no one has lifted such an oil rich country out of poverty). I know you've got an axe to grind but just accept that all major movements in Venezuela are corrupt.

[Bubba]

The corrupt elite which leads Venezuela today is quite a mixture of ethnic groups. Their sole common denominator is being Chavez followers and worshippers. As I explained in previous posts, these guys are neo-fascists wrapped in a populist carapace, corrupt as hell. Their theft will be known as the second theft of the century, after the one in Russia.

This is a severe distortion: Chavez' opponents are just as corrupt as he is and Venezuela was just as unequal, crime ridden and poor before Chavez took office, that's the whole reason he ever won elections in the first place (it's pathetic no one has lifted such an oil rich country out of poverty). I know you've got an axe to grind but just accept that all major movements in Venezuela are corrupt.

Funny how the whitest nations are also the least corrupt eh?

And here I was all this time thinking Italians and Tunisians were white... Silly me!

[Social_Critic]

Dear Bubba:

I don't know how you can prove Chavez' opponents today are just as corrupt as Chavez and his cronies. This is a fairly simple point I can make, because Chavez has been in power since 1999, and the guys running for President were, for the most part, too young to have done anything prior to Chavez. I do not accept that all politiicans and political movements in Venezuela are just as corrupt as the Chavez regime, because the Chavez regime has reached levels of corruption which have increased over the last 10 years at a very steep rate. And because I lived in Venezuela until recently, I can vouch this is the way it is.

Therefore your point looks to me like a wet noodle.

Furthermore, I do not feel it is reasonable to accept extreme corruption, shrug one's shoulder, and just say "it's the same as it ever was". We should never accept corruption, especially at the high levels seen in Venezuela. Remember the OP shows Venezuela's corruption level is amongst the worst in the world. There is no excuse for this to be so. As a person who suffered directly the impact of such corruption, and who saw in person how the corruption sponsored by Chavez hurts the Venezuelan people, I protest.

[Smertios]

And what skin color does the people have who let them have this power?

lol

And what is the skin color of the people who let Italian politicians have the same power? And the skin color of those politicians themselves?

A bad argument is bad, no matter how pretty you state it...

[Kman]

lol

And what is the skin color of the people who let Italian politicians have the same power? And the skin color of those politicians themselves?

A bad argument is bad, no matter how pretty you state it...

Yeah well Italians have a lower average genetic quality than most other white populations, that is why they are so corrupt.

[Smertios]

Yeah well Italians have a lower average genetic quality than most other white populations, that is why they are so corrupt.

You have proof, or are we supposed to believe your word? The word of someone who didn't attend University and prefers to disregard everything the scientific community says...

Present a couple of papers by scientists from respected academic centers supporting your views and perhaps you will get people to take you seriously... Otherwise, your opinion on the matter is just as important as that of the guy who sells pretzels in the street...

[Dave]

Lynn presented a study suggesting that Sicilians had a notably lower IQ (and implicated the gap was genetic) than other Europeans, but the paper simply relied upon extrapolating PISA and TMSS scores so it is hardly authoritative.

I do believe there is some genetic basis for the greater levels of corruption in Italy, largely related to the long persistence of the clan system in some parts of the country. However clans also persisted in Scotland for a long time, and Scotland is not corrupt.

So...who knows?