Is Japan a Western country ?

[Lina Inverse]

Japan is clearly NO Western country. "Western" means the opposite from "Eastern", which in turn refers to the Asian countries (Japan, China etc.).
"Western" refers to populations from the northern half of the Eurasian continent, and to North-American populations.
"Eastern" refers to populations from the Asian contries (southern half of the Eurasian continent).
Populations from Africa and South-America are neither Western nor Eastern, but Southern populations (more frequently also called "3rd-world-countries").

[chiquiliquis]

...Populations from Africa and South-America are neither Western nor Eastern, but Southern populations (more frequently also called "3rd-world-countries").

Please be sure to run that by someone from Africa or South America... you might be surprised at what you hear in response....

Quote:
Originally Posted by hua he

Actually, the so called "western" and "eastern" countries was actually differentiated racially. Just see, as long as it is a country with white in charge, this is a western country. If the country is with blacks or yellows in charge, it will be an eastern country. THis is the view of the whole world.

You hit the bull's eye.

... Hua He left out a group (or groups?); there are more people in this world than "whites" "blacks" and "yellows". And while this statement is somewhat true, I think it is slippery.

Why again is it important (necessary?) to be able to call people "eastern" or "western"... ?

This is certainly an interesting thread

[yimija]

Why again is it important (necessary?) to be able to call people "eastern" or "western"... ?

This is certainly an interesting thread

I agree with both sentences. It's an interesting thread well brought up by Maciamo. Thanks.

As for wether we are westerners or esterners will specifically depend wher you stand and wether you are facing north or south ...
Well it was intended as a joke, (and not as a stupid statement) just to shift the emphasis from a mere statement to a reality. It's just used by "whoever give some information" to sort of localize physically and geographically the subject. But since we always pick up what the Europeans say, we, in Asia, have been call the "easterner" .

It's just a name, not an insult or injurious name. It was not meant to be anyway. So let's keep it at that.

The main question asked in fact meant : Is Japan becomming too much of a "Europeanised and Americanized" country. And that somehow wouold b a shame, somewher (as I mentionned earlier)

[chiquiliquis]

It's just used by "whoever give some information" to sort of localize physically and geographically the subject.

I agree

The main question asked in fact meant : Is Japan becomming too much of a "Europeanised and Americanized" country. And that somehow wouold b a shame, somewher (as I mentionned earlier)

I see...

So:
What are the standards we use to measure cultural change, in terms of quality? IE: is it fair (a good idea/acceptable) to measure today's "Europeanised and Americanised" (a.k.a: "Globalised") Japan in terms of it's past alone? Do we use other standards, and what are they (if any)?

This isn't necessarily a question solely for Yimija, but something I am just throwing out... If it has alreadey been answered elsewhere in the thread, "gomen"... but this thread is getting long, and I came in late... I admit to skimming a bit.

[yimija]

What are the standards we use to measure cultural change, in terms of quality? IE: is it fair (a good idea/acceptable) to measure today's "Europeanised and Americanised" (a.k.a: "Globalised") Japan in terms of it's past alone? Do we use other standards, and what are they (if any)?

This isn't necessarily a question solely for Yimija, but something I am just throwing out... If it has alreadey been answered elsewhere in the thread, "gomen"... but this thread is getting long, and I came in late... I admit to skimming a bit.

Sorry, I just do not completely agree with the term "globalization", simply because, if you look in a dictionnary, it means roughly "putting everything on the same level" and the actual globalization tend to skip and put apart all the poor countries, the so called 3rd world and the non "interresting-commercially" countries.

Like for exemple : Irak is completely part of globalization because it has billions of ｣$｣$｣ worth of petrol, so we care about killing there, but Rwanda is a "non-interresting-commercially" country and so we dont give a..XXXXX (wont say the word) about the ethnic massacres, killing hundreds of thousands of people. So I believe (in fact I'm certain) globalization is a product for the riches, invented by the riches. So let's keep it "western, eastern, northern and southern" and we might know what we are talking about.

and dot worry about skimming, we all do it when it comes to a long thread.

[chiquiliquis]

NOTE: long reply with not a lot of mention of Japan... but I'm hoping in the end it will be pertinent.

and so:

Sorry, I just do not completely agree with the term "globalization", simply because, if you look in a dictionnary, it means roughly "putting everything on the same level" and the actual globalization tend to skip and put apart all the poor countries, the so called 3rd world and the non "interresting-commercially" countries.

OK... I think I follow you...

Like for exemple : Irak is completely part of globalization because it has billions of ｣$｣$｣ worth of petrol, so we care about killing there, but Rwanda is a "non-interresting-commercially" country and so we dont give a..XXXXX (wont say the word) about the ethnic massacres, killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I can see your point here... but I think it is slippery. Ever been to Colombia? Plenty of oil (British Petrol, Occidental etc..) like Iraq... .... also, like Iraq... not the most stable source of oil (a lot of civil unrest).

And like Rwanda, a whole lot of killings... paramilitary death squads, government corruption... Interesting fact: Colombia has the worlds third largest displaced population (after Chad and Angola? Don't quote me on those..). At least last time I checked--prolly 2002.

I'll give five dollars to the first person here who remembers the Florida case where Coca Cola was brought up on accusations of using Colombian paramilitaries to murder unionists. That one never made front page here at home... How many people here can name just one of the (USDS recognized) terrorist groups in Colombia... How many can name two? Three? (Congrats... if you named all three, you ought to consider employment with the U.S. Dept. of State ).

That emerald in the ring you bought wifey? Good chance it came from Colombia. That coffee you're drinking? Good chance it came from Colombia. That gas you just put in your car? Good chance some of it came from Colombia.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but Average-Joe-American (stopping at BP for gas, with a cup of coffee in his hand) knows nothing about the Mapiripan Masacre (30 people in a small village dismembered one by one with a chainsaw in a local slaughterhouse, with the cooperation of the Colombian National Military--the same military we throw millions upon millions of US tax dollars at to take care of "our" drug problem).

I'm hoping you see my point... lots of "commercial interest", very little "awareness".

So I believe (in fact I'm certain) globalization is a product for the riches, invented by the riches.

I'm largely with you here...

But, I don't really see the point of all this.

I think what you may be trying to say is that there is a problem with the way we define Globalization: It's not really global (since it has/wants nothing to do with the third world--Colombia being an exception).

I see it thus: Japan, is NOT a third world country. The question is still valid as it pertains to Japan. While I would still pose the question to Colombia today... I will not pose it to Rwanda, as I know very little about Rwanda... and am largely inclined to agree with your objection to the definition of "globalization" (regardless).

Here is the question once more:

What are the standards we use to measure cultural change, in terms of quality? IE: is it fair (a good idea/acceptable) to measure today's "Europeanised and Americanised" (a.k.a: "Globalised") Japan in terms of it's past alone? Do we use other standards, and what are they (if any)?


And, lastly, I would put this to you: If you insist on pulling "Globalization" out of the discussion... please give me an example of a country that is being "Americanized and Europeanized" without being Globalized.

Americanized, and Europeanized.... I take these to be dynamic terms involving more than just "customs" and "traditions", but economic and political philosophies as well. These are not just labels and categories... these are things that have been described as "wiping out" cultures--replacing them with MacDonald's, Coca Cola, Democracy, Christianity (?)... I believe these are the charges that have been made.


But then... no globalization in Rwanda yet? They can drink Coca Cola, can't they... just wait.

[yimija]

NOTE: long reply with not a lot of mention of Japan... but
I'm hoping in the end it will be pertinent..

Yes it's pertinent, and although we might have different point of views and perception (or way to speak about it) we are basically not completely wrong and not completely right.

It's an intricate situation and there will be as many different ways of seeing or explaining it as there are different people to talk about....

But I thoroughly enjoyed reading you, so I say thank you.
If I have a little more time, i'l come back to it, but now for the comming week, it seems a bit difficult. we'll see what others will have to say.

[Maciamo]

Japan is clearly NO Western country. "Western" means the opposite from "Eastern", which in turn refers to the Asian countries (Japan, China etc.).
"Western" refers to populations from the northern half of the Eurasian continent, and to North-American populations.

So is Russian an Eastern countries, as it is clearly more East than Europe ? If not what about Turkey, Israel ? Is Morroco a Western countries because it is next to Western Europe ?

Populations from Africa and South-America are neither Western nor Eastern, but Southern populations (more frequently also called "3rd-world-countries").

Are you saying that Chile and Argentina (90% of pure European descent) are not Western countries ?

[yimija]

So is Russian an Eastern countries, as it is clearly more East than Europe ? If not what about Turkey, Israel ? Is Morroco a Western countries because it is next to Western Europe ?

Yes good remark, Maciamo ! As time goes by and that continents shifts in extremely slow motion, the countries that are built on those continents will have a tendency to move extremely fast from "east to west", strangely enough !!! Ima-Sumac only knows where Israel and Turkey stand, especially if you compare them with the Palestinian country...

Are you saying that Chile and Argentina (90% of pure European descent) are not Western countries ?

Unfortunately, they are not considered as western countries, and that is all the "funny" (i should say bizarre) part of it since that they are, geographically, just as much "west" as US & Canada. Africa is about the same as Europe and they are not not considered western.


Somewhere, and it's far from being a conclusion, it make me sick that we have to adopt a system in which we now are forced to give graduate "appreciation" of one's location and one's "wealth-by-location". I'm an optimistic person and I hope it will change. But I wont be here to see it. I'm planning a trip back home to Venus...