What constitutes "Being Western?"

[Tabako]

It's Western

Pro Industrialization
Rich in military history ever since modernizing
Oriented toward global markets
Has democracy
Liberal ideals at least partly incorporated, including the ideological struggle, but to a lesser degree

Hnmm

again: famously liberally democratic country, japan.

And that's also what I referred as being militaristic

Pretty sure I said that

It does have Democracy, even if it's flawed. Western nations can feature as well dictatorships. Did N*zi Germany go Eastern or something because they went totalitarian? What I mean by liberal democracy is the civil society, the importance of democracy as a topic of discussion, the presence, even in a flawed manner of such system, as well a constitution.

And I will reiterate, it does have a wish for military warmongering. Obviously thats not only a Western thing, but it's an extension due to how common it is in Western societies, to dominate or civilize. Japan once with industrialization began efforts of building own Colonial empire. Pretty sure their Western partners thought them and inspired them to pursue wars of aggression. China, Indochina and bunch of other regions saw Japanese desire for resources

[Ethel mermania]

I reckon, I right dont know

Does the question mean culturally or politically?

[HISPIDA]

It does have Democracy, even if it's flawed. Western nations can feature as well dictatorships. Did N*zi Germany go Eastern or something because they went totalitarian? What I mean by liberal democracy is the civil society, the importance of democracy as a topic of discussion, the presence, even in a flawed manner of such system, as well a constitution.

so by your definition: nazi germany, fascist italy, francoist spain, and napoleonic france (among others!) would not be "western" because democracy was not a topic of discussion in these countries.

[Jolthig]

I would say with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc. They are more extreme examples of the "western right".

[Technoscience Leftwing]

In pre-revolutionary Russia, both liberals and socialists (including the Bolsheviks) believed that the West was more progressive than the East. What did they see as this progressiveness?

1. Humanism. The idea that a person has the right to strive for earthly happiness, and not to sacrifice his earthly happiness to the religious commandments and traditions of his ancestors.
2. Science and education. The idea that knowledge about the world should be obtained not from sacred books or mystical insights, but from experience - knowledge should be tested by practice and processed by logic. After which this knowledge should become available through the education system.
3. Technical progress, industry, urbanization. The introduction of scientific knowledge into production to create useful things on a mass scale. The construction of factories for this, around which cities with their infrastructure grow: public transport, schools, libraries, museums, theaters, universities, ports, etc.
4. Revolutionism, egalitarianism, emancipation. Recognition of the right of the oppressed sections of the population to rebel against their oppressors in order to gain equal access to government of the country and equal social protection from poverty.

All this appeared in Europe from 1500 to 1900, before that there was exactly the same despotism and backwardness as in the agrarian societies of the East. In the Middle Ages, Arab countries showed even greater tolerance towards people of other faiths, and China was more successful in inventions. Europe has advanced since 1500. At the same time, its progressiveness does not mean its sinlessness; Europe gave birth to absolutism, colonialism, and fascism. But progressive figures sought to adopt not this from the West, but things useful for the people’s good: humanism, science, enlightenment, technical progress, revolutionism, emancipation and egalitarianism.

[Ifreann]

In the immortal words of the philosopher David Hayter, after the end of WWII the world was split into two, East and West. This marked the beginning of the period known as the Cold War.

[Order of Maesters]

Its an immensely broad question and probably not a very useful definition in any case but traditionally I think most would view it as a set of values around three core pillars:

- Liberal democracy
- Capitalism
- Secularism

Added categories are also important such as geography, relative level of development, and historical context also factor in.

Famous western country Japan.

Japan is:

- Secular
- Capitalist
- Highly developed
- Is a liberal democracy, albeit with fairly uncompetitive elections.
- Politically oriented towards more "traditional' western nations.

It fulfills a number of pieces on the list above.

[Floofybit]

Negative longitude, west of the Prime Meridian

[Juansonia]

- has cowboys
- is not scifi

[Aguaria Major]

I see the idea of being "western" in the colloquial sense as less having to do with geography or bloodlines (i.e., I see it as not being dependent on whether the nation or society in question is European or of European descent),

but as having to do with certain values that most or all of a population holds as central to their outlook on the world; specifically, "western" in my mind refers to societies and nations who have been both acquainted with, and who believe overall either in Enlightenment philosophy, e.g., unalienable rights, seeing mankind as being above its basal desires, individualism, secular humanism, civil freedoms, some idea of democratic governance and possibly market economics (this is why most nations considered "western" tend to be liberal democracies), or reactions against (e.g., fascism)/evolutions of (e.g., Marxism, anarchism) the ideas of the Enlightenment.

So, to answer OP's question on specific places:

Middle America, South America and the Caribbean are mostly western imo, as is Taiwan.

South Africa is a heavily mixed bag, as are the nations of the Pacific not including Australia and New Zealand (Australia and NZ are both western), as well as India.

The citizens of Israel largely hold western values, but the government has never held them. The same goes for places like Russia and Belarus (in their current iterations).

Japan, South Korea and Singapore, for the most part, are not western.

---

EDIT:

Before anyone responds with "so you just think being western means being a non-authoritarian/relatively free society?"

No, there are plenty of examples of non-western cultures who have crafted free societies and ideologies where individuals are supposed to be free without relying on Enlightenment philosophy, e.g. the Zapatista-controlled territory of Mexico, Rojava, Mongolia, Nepal, numerous indigenous societies in the Americas, and the societies in Africa which gave rise to the Ubuntu school of ethical philosophy.

I also clearly included fascism as a western ideology.

[Rusozak]

"Western" used to define west and central Europe, along with European colonies oversees. Since the Cold War it's come to be NATO and its allies, nations aligned with the US-lead bloc against the USSR/Russia/China/etc.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

"Western country" means different things to different people, which makes it a poor word in terms of communication effectiveness. This is particularly visible to me because I am South Korean, which may or may not be a western country depending on what specific criteria one uses. I generally consider "western" to be a cultural term, that is to say "Catholic/Protestant Christendom and societies descended from it", so I don't generally consider where I live to be a western country.

When I want a short phrase to refer to "my country and other countries like it" I use the term high-income democracy, which is a much better term because it makes explicit by what criteria I am categorising countries.

[Theodorable]

It doesn't mean anything. It can be used to describe whatever we like, whenever we like; even if it's contradictory. Because it's a meaningless term.

[Tabako]

It does have Democracy, even if it's flawed. Western nations can feature as well dictatorships. Did N*zi Germany go Eastern or something because they went totalitarian? What I mean by liberal democracy is the civil society, the importance of democracy as a topic of discussion, the presence, even in a flawed manner of such system, as well a constitution.

so by your definition: nazi germany, fascist italy, francoist spain, and napoleonic france (among others!) would not be "western" because democracy was not a topic of discussion in these countries.

It was
Even if such were suppressed, the ideals never went away. They went toward militia groups resisting totalitarian rule

[Bradfordville]

"Western country" means different things to different people, which makes it a poor word in terms of communication effectiveness. This is particularly visible to me because I am South Korean, which may or may not be a western country depending on what specific criteria one uses. I generally consider "western" to be a cultural term, that is to say "Catholic/Protestant Christendom and societies descended from it", so I don't generally consider where I live to be a western country.

When I want a short phrase to refer to "my country and other countries like it" I use the term high-income democracy, which is a much better term because it makes explicit by what criteria I am categorising countries.

I'm getting Mandela effected. I could have sworn you were from Sweden.

[Tabako]

Or you could see it as a body of paradigms. Christian descendance is irrelevant

[Ethel mermania]

Accepting being part of the western liberal tradition that traces its roots to ancient Greece and rome.

[Corporate Collective Salvation]

Accepting being part of the western liberal tradition that traces its roots to ancient Greece and rome.

And arguing over which of those is the bigger, or better influence can get interesting on its own.
Especially these days where most seem to prefer Persian-esque empire with citizens maintained as a policed proletariat herded either by consumerism or communism.
The distinctions between classic east west themes are much sharper in the pages of history than in contemporary socioeconomic practice.

Anyway, I prefer the landscape of the Greek polis.
What those city states accomplished in terms of independently maintaining identity at home while making huge waves on a larger stage when allied as needed and wanted versus maintaining themselves as a monolithic unitarian concern still provides lessons and perspective I feel most need to reexamine objectively.

[Ethel mermania]

Accepting being part of the western liberal tradition that traces its roots to ancient Greece and rome.

And arguing over which of those is the bigger, or better influence can get interesting on its own.
Especially these days where most seem to prefer Persian-esque empire with citizens maintained as a policed proletariat herded either by consumerism or communism.
The distinctions between classic east west themes are much sharper in the pages of history than in contemporary socioeconomic practice.

The Persian, tradition is very different from the Greek.

To you second paragraph, agreed but that is because the west has basically won the economic part of that war.

[Nihilism]

• early adaptor to the industrial revolution
• history of colonizing the living daylights out of everyone else
• some christian denomination as state religion since the 1500s
• official language is of germanic or romance variety.

Honorary western nation; Japan.

[Corporate Collective Salvation]

The Persian, tradition is very different from the Greek.
To you second paragraph, agreed but that is because the west has basically won the economic part of that war.

The most crucial part.
Without economic freedom, any other kind is meaningless.
If you are not allowed to put your money where your morals are in an open market of ideas, then your society, public and private, will skew in ways not readily apparent, and ultimately self-defeating.

[Soumilslandia and Basustandia]

Economy
Infrastructure
GDP per Capita
Jobs

[Existential Cats]

Not really anything; it's a term that we invented in recent centuries. Seems to point to a similar amorphous idea as terms like "First World," "European," and "white people."

[Corporate Collective Salvation]

Not really anything; it's a term that we invented in recent centuries. Seems to point to a similar amorphous idea as terms like "First World," "European," and "white people."

Good point.
The modern forest would be painted in a variety of styles depending on which twentieth century trees had been superpowers dictating perspective.
You can have a lot of fun, drive yourself crazy, or both (heh heh), what if-ing the classic polar conventions of regional, institutional, never mind global perspective.

Atheist v Theist
Monotheist v Polytheist
Socialist v Capitalist
Authoritarian v Libertarian
Individualist v Collectivist
Original v Extra Crispy

On and on, world without end, recycled through different forms, and at times, paired to different opponents.
I love historical fiction, but non-fiction really is more fascinating, and laboratory enough for speculation.

[Bradfordville]

Iceland is the cornerstone of western civilization, since its the farthest western European country.