| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Western or Eastern civilization?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Western or Eastern civilization?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Western or Eastern civilization?
    Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 05:31
List those countries for both.  My take on the situation is this.  A western civilization means the accumulative of "ways of life" which have become placed under the umbrella "western civilization" and likewise for "eastern civilization".  What are the "ways of life" for western and for eastern?  Some things I can suggest are:

Western:

Emphasis on imported identity, pluralism, different ethnicities, numerous political parties, separate fields of administration and laws, democracy, and nation states:

European countries (prime example)
India
Austrailia
North and South America
Japan
Thailand (iffy)
Russia (iffy)

Eastern:

Emphasis on historical identity, authoritarianism, melding to one single ethnicity, single party state entangled in hierarchy, single field of administration with ubiquitous laws, holistic approach to things like commerce, and civilization states:

China (prime example)
Korea
Vietnam
Laos
Central Asia
Middle East

I have not list every single country.  I'm pretty sure there is more in the list for the western civilization with disregard for the colonial state of affairs as it existed between the rise of the European naval powers during the Victorian era.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 05:38
You read my mind. SmileThumbs Up
Back to Top
PeaceB View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 27 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PeaceB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 07:09
There's no such thing as an Eastern civlization anymore. Because All of the East Asian countries have gone through strong Westernization.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 07:14
Well if Eastern civilization went through strong westernization then Western civilization went through strong easternization and they don't exist anymore.

Edited by literaryClarity - 07 Jun 2015 at 07:14
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
PeaceB View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 27 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PeaceB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 07:19
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Well if Eastern civilization went through strong westernization then Western civilization went through strong easternization and they don't exist anymore.


Exactly. This is why I no longer believe in civilization. I believe the whole idea of civilization died mostly due to Vatican II and Vietnam War. It's all about the fall of religions and rise of technology.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 07:22
And anyway by default the eastern portion is going to be less because of the defining principle in the OP.  Eastern civilization have always been more about unity (meaning one country doesn't become 20 different republics) and preservation of a way of life that is more totalitarian in nature than it is complex.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
PeaceB View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 27 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PeaceB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 10:27
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Eastern civilization have always been more about unity (meaning one country doesn't become 20 different republics) and preservation of a way of life that is more totalitarian in nature than it is complex.


It's better to say "Eastern culture", but whatever fancies you.

Edited by PeaceB - 07 Jun 2015 at 10:29
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 10:30
No it's backwards.  Eastern culture allows different shades of grey but it is part of the same civilization.  You have to be one of us.  Western culture does not allow different shades of grey and that is why they have to break apart.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 14:19

All the talk of any "West" as an objective etity different from "the East" is at best very muddled - or "grey" if Youi want! The very limits - what is "inside" and "outside" the boundaries of this fathom of imagination depends very much upon context. It would not surprise me if some Americans think they are the one and only "western nation" - or that "hte West" is restricted to the western states, excluding the US eastcoast and the rest of us. And why not? If some British think in the same way they are the one and only "western" nation of Europe - then fine for me! Or should we include the French and the Belgians? Why not admit the very idea has its origins in the far past, thousands of years ago, when the view that the earth is "flat" was widespread. On some flat disk You would risk to fall over the edge if You moved far enough either to the West or East. From the time over 2000 years ago when at least some realised we probably live ofn a more spherical body the very idea of an absolute "West" or "East" wss questionable, not to say outdated.

Edited by fantasus - 07 Jun 2015 at 14:21
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 18:01
But there is a prime example for everything.  European countries as we know them today began in a sense from a long constructed past of Romanization or Latinization.  It has been surmised, at the very least, by western scholars, that a vast array of emerging powers is usually the result of a hegemonic override.  In Europe's case it was the demise of the Roman empire.  Each territory would have then opted to speak their own language, create their own governance, tax rates, etc.  The European Union was formed to create the Euro because all those European countries understood that ultimately, in some undertakings, a common resource could be more effective. 

On the other hand countries of undoubtedly eastern civilization, with China being the prime example, have experienced long recurring histories of warring states but they more or less became vaster panregions holding the boundaries of all the territories which have been historically involved.  There is indeed a contrast in principles of division methodology which separate the west from the east.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 18:30
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

But there is a prime example for everything.  European countries as we know them today began in a sense from a long constructed past of Romanization or Latinization.  It has been surmised, at the very least, by western scholars, that a vast array of emerging powers is usually the result of a hegemonic override.  In Europe's case it was the demise of the Roman empire.  Each territory would have then opted to speak their own language, create their own governance, tax rates, etc.  The European Union was formed to create the Euro because all those European countries understood that ultimately, in some undertakings, a common resource could be more effective. 

On the other hand countries of undoubtedly eastern civilization, with China being the prime example, have experienced long recurring histories of warring states but they more or less became vaster panregions holding the boundaries of all the territories which have been historically involved.  There is indeed a contrast in principles of division methodology which separate the west from the east.
China is big, but there is far more territories East of Europe, thqt was never mpart of Chinese empires and usually divided into much smaller entities. And larger, empires or states, were not unknown for Europe. Like the western roman empire, polish-lithuanian "commonwealth", the territories of the Hapsburgs, the Carolingian realm and many mopre.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 18:40
But you are just reiterating my point about what separates a western civilization from a eastern one.  It's not just imagined or contextualized in directional terms.  As I've said it's not what constituted a western civilization in the beginning it's what it had potential to become.  As time went on the chronology would reveal the splitting up of a larger territory to become smaller ones for instances of western civilization.  You may point out exceptions to the rule such as Greek city states which became Greece and which included Macedonia but their overall territory is small and they are situated to the Balkans which contains many small territories.  In a true eastern civilization context that would never happen.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2015 at 20:37
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

But you are just reiterating my point about what separates a western civilization from a eastern one.  It's not just imagined or contextualized in directional terms.  As I've said it's not what constituted a western civilization in the beginning it's what it had potential to become.  As time went on the chronology would reveal the splitting up of a larger territory to become smaller ones for instances of western civilization.  You may point out exceptions to the rule such as Greek city states which became Greece and which included Macedonia but their overall territory is small and they are situated to the Balkans which contains many small territories.  In a true eastern civilization context that would never happen.

As I understand You You put forward a cirkular argument: "Western" states are smaller than "Eastern" empires. If You find examples of the oppositte it is because they are not "truly" opposite anyway. And, by the way: why not follow the argument that only 2eastern" states are that big, and then we find countries like contemporary U.S.of A, Canada, Brazil, Australia and Argentina with "Eastern" caracteristics?
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 00:59
Of course, the original West/East division was the Trojan War, or the kidnapping of Medea by Jason.  Like Eve and the apple, it's all her fault! <grin>  But really, your kind of characterization of the West/East 'split' dates back to the Persian War.  That doesn't mean the characterization is true, its just that the propaganda goes that deep.  It's most current manifestation is the erroneous belief that there is a war between the West and Islam.  The reality is much more complex than that.
Back to Top
PeaceB View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 27 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PeaceB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 02:17
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

It's most current manifestation is the erroneous belief that there is a war between the West and Islam.  The reality is much more complex than that.


True. I think people are so obsessed with the "us vs. them" mentality and this way of thinking is too dangerous.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 03:41
Fantasus I don't see the flaw in pointing out exceptions to the general view.  The Greek example shows that even when there is exception to the trend to split, the landmass was small and one can only see the sense of a Greece as the sum of many smaller island constituents.  The US example shows that when there is exception to the trend of smaller size, territorial stratification of the large territory is an issue.  I've recently discovered that all states in the US have witnessed the filing of petitions in some form or other about wanting to secede from the Union.  The popular examples were Hawaii, Texas, and Alaska.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 04:10
Quote

State secession

Some state movements seek secession from the United States itself and the formation of a nation from one or more states.

  • California secessionism - This was discussed by involved grassroots movement parties and small activist groups calling for the state to secede from the union, they met in a pro-secessionist meeting in Sacramento on April 15, 2010 to discuss advancing the matter.[67]
  • Florida: The mock 1982 secessionist protest[68] by the Conch Republic in the Florida Keys resulted in an ongoing source of local pride and tourist amusement.
  • Georgia: On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution 43-1 that asserted the right of states to nullify federal laws under some circumstances. The resolution also asserted that if Congress, the president, or the federal judiciary took certain steps, such as establishing martial law without state consent, requiring some types of involuntary servitude, taking any action regarding religion or restricting freedom of political speech, or establishing further prohibitions of types or quantities of firearms or ammunition, the constitution establishing the United States government would be considered nullified and the union would be dissolved.[69]
  • Hawaii: The Hawaiian sovereignty movement has a number of active groups that have won some concessions from the state of Hawaii, including the offering of H.R. 258 in March 2011, which removes the words "Treaty of Annexation" from a statute. It has passed a committee recommendation 6-0 thus far.[70]
  • New Hampshire: On September 1, 2012 "The New Hampshire Liberty Party was formed to promote independence from the federal government and for the individual."[72] The Free State Project is another NH based movement that has considered secession to increase liberty. On July 23, 2001 founder of the FSP, Jason Sorens, published "Announcement: The Free State Project", in The Libertarian Enterprise stating, "Even if we don't actually secede, we can force the federal government to compromise with us and grant us substantial liberties. Scotland and Quebec have both used the threat of secession to get large subsidies and concessions from their respective national governments. We could use our leverage for liberty."[73]
  • South Carolina: In May 2010 a group formed that called itself the Third Palmetto Republic, a reference to the fact that the state claimed to be an independent republic twice before: once in 1776 and again in 1860. The group models itself after the Second Vermont Republic, and says its aims are for a free and independent South Carolina, and to abstain from any further federations.[citation needed]
  • Texas Secession Movement: The group Republic of Texas generated national publicity for its controversial actions in the late 1990s.[74] A small group still meets.[75] In April 2009, Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, raised the issue of secession in disputed comments during a speech at a Tea Party protest saying "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that...My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."[76][77][78][79]
  • Vermont: The Second Vermont Republic, founded in 2003, is a loose network of several groups that describes itself as "a nonviolent citizens' network and think tank opposed to the tyranny of Corporate America and the U.S. government, and committed to the peaceful return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic and more broadly the dissolution of the Union."[80][81] Its "primary objective is to extricate Vermont peacefully from the United States as soon as possible."[82] They have worked closely with the Middlebury Institute created from a meeting sponsored in Vermont in 2004.[83][84] On October 28, 2005, activists held the Vermont Independence Conference, "the first statewide convention on secession in the United States since North Carolina voted to secede from the Union on May 20, 1861".[82] They also participated in the 2006 and 2007 Middlebury-organized national secessionist meetings that brought delegates from over a dozen groups.[85][86][87]
  • Republic of Lakotah: Some members of the Lakota people of Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota created the Republic to assert the independence of a nation that was always sovereign and did not willingly join the United States; therefore they do not consider themselves technically to be secessionists.[88]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#1980s-present_efforts


http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 06:50
LC, I simply find this division, at least as You seems to put it forward, go too far. And while I can see some commonality between an admittedly vaguely defined "West", I think the same is not the case with the so-called "East". The only thing possibly being its "non-westernness", but that is more of a "negative definition". Else we should divide it up in regions. And we should not forget that there are huge territories, continents, directly to the South of what is usuallu called "the" West. West Africa stretches more to the West than Western Europe. And what is Central and South America? The division of the earth into a geograpjhical "western" and "Eastern" hemisphere seeems extremely artificial to me. The point could be: "The center of the World and the navel of the universe is today (when the division was made centuries ago, not 2015)Britain, of course, since we are the most advanced (and expanding globally) country on earth. We have the most excellent geographers and astrronomers, in particular here at Greenwhich, so its just and far we put ourselves at the 0-meridian".
Honestly I don´t know that much of the story behind this Greenwhich meridian, so the above was a piece of imagination.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 06:56
Fantasus I think you are going too deep philosophically into the matter with your mumbo jumbo about positive and negative definitions etc etc.  I'm just contrasting the two as they should be.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 07:47
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Fantasus I think you are going too deep philosophically into the matter with your mumbo jumbo about positive and negative definitions etc etc.  I'm just contrasting the two as they should be.

No, it should not be! Not the way You do it, not by postulating one Eastern civilisation (or culture, or "way of life) as opposed to one "western civilisation". Especially regarding the peoples East fromEurope to the pPacific the differences are so many and goes so Deep that it is misleading to say they are "one". Arabs, Chinese, Malayans, Tibetans and Tamils. What should htey have in common?
And Africans: where do they fit in? Sorry to say, but Your division seems fictional. The only reason not to reject it completely is that what is usually labelled "western" has some commonality.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 15:20
Fantasus It would be entirely feasible if I called them by some other name and not by geographical terms as those apply from the perspective of the prime examples.  Perhaps the terms allocentric based versus idiocentric based civilization might convey their properties at the beginning and be better terms.

I didn't state what between Arabs, Chinese, etc. that they should have in common. I think you made the false assumption that what I meant by the word "should" has to do with what they "ought to responsibly do".  "Should" had no philosophical underpinning for I used it in the context of affirming a truth.

But what they do have in common happens because of their most glaring corresponding attributes.  What could be more necessary in their placement of either an western or eastern civilization?  If you ignore every objective truth based on factual data and rely on philosophizing what should or shouldn't be you will have done nothing to clarify a position and everything you say will sound vague and wishy washy.  I choose to be objective and not wishy washy in my position to clarify which umbrella categorization a civilization is classified under.

Furthermore can you state more specifically to what it is you refer to when you say "Not the way you do". What??


Edited by literaryClarity - 08 Jun 2015 at 15:38
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
PeaceB View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 27 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PeaceB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 16:47
For stating the core of the matter, I'm telling this as a multicultural person (Asian upbringing in a British Commonwealth country): the "East and West" division for many people is a European colonial era heritage that isn't suitable in the 21st century.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 18:53
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:





Fantasus It would be entirely feasible if I
called them by some other name and not by geographical terms as those apply from the perspective of the prime examples.  Perhaps the terms allocentric based versus idiocentric based civilization might convey their properties at the beginning and be better terms.

Perhaps better, but it will still not solve the problem with Your division of two "bloc-civilisations", that does not have any good base
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:



I didn't state what between Arabs, Chinese, etc. that they should have in common. I think you made the false assumption that what I meant by the word "should" has to do with what they "ought to responsibly do".  "Should" had no philosophical underpinning for I used it in the context of affirming a truth.
No I did not make that assumption. What is wrong with Your claims from my point of view is precisely thatit does not lead to truth or a better insight. So, if You convince me Your claims are based on real insight I will applaud it, but I don´t think so. I think You are wrong.
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:


But what they do have in common happens because of their most glaring corresponding attributes.  What could be more necessary in their placement of either an western or eastern civilization?  If you ignore every objective truth based on factual data and rely on philosophizing what should or shouldn't be you will have done nothing to clarify a position and everything you say will sound vague and wishy washy.  I choose to be objective and not wishy washy in my position to clarify which umbrella categorization a civilization is classified under.

Furthermore can you state more specifically to what it is you refer to when you say "Not the way you do". What??
Not the way You postulate two bloc "entities" - civilisations, that is without sounfd Foundations in my view. How doYou see, say, "arabs", koreans, malayans and sri-lankans with all their differences as part of some "entity" - some "Eastern" Civ? For me it is not far from pure nonsense, sorry to say so.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 20:37
Quote
For stating the core of the matter, I'm telling this as a multicultural person (Asian upbringing in a British Commonwealth country): the "East and West" division for many people is a European colonial era heritage that isn't suitable in the 21st century.


I think you are referring to the colonialist perspective of the Victorian era or something along those lines which conveyed a west and a east in terms of an occident and orthodox/orient.  I think I'm referring to something quite different because I'm using an objective based system to rate a civilization for traits which correspond to an archetype.  Not merely for something stupid like what religion it practiced (which can be imported).  This system is something akin to classifying someone as a male or female.  It doesn't need to get philosophical.


Edited by literaryClarity - 08 Jun 2015 at 20:38
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 20:40
Fantasus you can be as sorry as you want whenever you disagree.  It's not enough for me to relinquish objective views and start going towards philosophy.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2015 at 20:49
Look do I have to draw a venn diagram or something?  It's not difficult to picture a circle and another circle.  They might overlap each other but the overlap are the exceptions to the rule or they are hybrids.  An eastern civilization is not a bloc anymore than it is a coalition of countries fighting against some threat.  The use of a geographic term somewhat betrays what the paradigm is concerned with, which is the way a civilization had been set up.  The prime example of it just so happens to be this country in the east.  It is just convenient to label it eastern civilization when technically it should be using the word allocentric civilization.


Edited by literaryClarity - 08 Jun 2015 at 20:51
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jun 2015 at 06:15
When I read the OP once Again I guess I find the source of difference. What You meant by "Western Civilisation" does not include centuries of History, not at least outside North America. Really "The West(ern Civ)" is not much more that another Word for US and those countriesled by it, mainly after WW2. If You had looked at times before that, You could in no way have said as a general rule the emphasis whas upon "democracy", since anything like it was an exception to general rules of more or less (often more) authoritarian states. Multiple parties was absolutely not welcomed or accepted for all parts. Today I will question how many countries really embrace diversity of ethnicity - countries in Asia are often much more diverse inm this respect. And there is no consensus of accepting "imported identities" - and if it is "imported" it is mainly from one other nation for later decades, though that may change: US -imported "identity" - or what appear as "made in the U.S." And to some degree "Hisorical identities" fight back.
Back to Top
Fintan View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09 Aug 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 101
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fintan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2015 at 02:14
Hello,  I am with Fantassus. Maybe the more important difference should be that western countries are democratic and eastern not.

But it is no true, because USA don't want to give democracy, as less gratis. Remember that the only countries that have had the impertinence to say no to USA in some questions has been De Gaull (France, V republic),
and United Kingdom, one semi-democratic cause have not really distinction in the judicial "power" That as 
Chateaubriand afirm is "presque nule". And the british a regimen representative very sincere, and  a judicial power not independent but very proud of his paper in english society.

The others, maybe with the exception of Switzerland and Israel are oligarchies more or less corrupt, but very easy to handle for USA.

I don't remember which USA pro-hombre said that If Santana should be elected and have a democratic goverment  in Mexico, thinks would change a lot in the American-Mexican War.
Two reflexions: Santana have the largest enemy in conspirator in Mexico-City.
Mexico was at last colonial times the richest capital in the world, that bring togheter  all the commerce between east and west indians in the Spanish America. Was not as now, that is a corrupt capital in a corrupt oligarchy.


Edited by Fintan - 02 Sep 2015 at 02:16
Back to Top
applepie1 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31 Aug 2015
Location: Pyongyangdong
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote applepie1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2015 at 18:19
As I am Korean. We are not same civilization along with China. You know Korea also, correctly South Korea is one of Western countries. Korea is democracy country and advanced country.
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.