“It came to the fore during World War I, when the fight against Germany and its allies — the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires — was conceived by Anglophone liberals as a war of Western civilization against Eastern despotism. John Maynard Keynes, a cosmopolitan liberal, was convinced there was a civilizational gulf even between Germans and Anglo-Saxons, while the Russians, though allied with the West, were well beyond the pale of Western modernity. In the wake of World War I, courses on 'Western Civilization' began to be taught at elite American universities. By the onset of the Cold War, the term 'Free World' supplanted 'the West' because American power demanded a more globally inclusive banner that could rally South Vietnamese, Indonesians and others in the war on Communist 'slave societies.' After the Cold War, however, conservative American thinkers, such as Samuel Huntington, revived the idea of 'Western civilization' as a way of dramatizing how a set of values was now under siege from new threats: migrants, terrorists and moral relativists."
पोस्ट्स
४५ टिप्पण्या:
Remember when the Kaiser put hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the march westward in 1914 because he feared that Germany was bing "encircled"? Good times, good times. Germany was beaten back and paupered and the world lived happily every after.
Not true. This idea is ancient, but went by a different name - “Christendom,” a term first coined by the Anglo-Saxons in the 9th century. As Christianity started to wane they needed a religion-neutral term.
Until the day before yesterday the EU did not regard Poland and Hungary as part of the West. Until yesterday no one thought of Ukraine as West.
I like western civ and it's better than the alternatives. But it's obviously a malleable term.
Marxists and postmodernists have tried to erase The West from memory because the concept itself undermines their secular materialist propaganda. They would rather everyone forget that the West is the greatest society ever (in terms of art, freedom, human rights, economic prosperity, knowledge, health, etc.), and that this outcome is directly connected to the psychological and spiritual foundation provided by the Christian religion of its people.
Fortunately, this postmodern project of erasure of the West has started to show cracks recently with high profile books like “Civilization” by Niall Ferguson and “The WEIRDest People” by Joseph Henrich (not just Putin). This guy wants to make sure The West stays erased.
Despite my very strong reservations about the American, indeed European, political posture, about the ``international terrorist'' coalition, despite all the de facto betrayals, all the failures to live up to democracy, international law, and the very international institutions that the states of this ``coalition'' themselves founded and supported up to a certain point, I would take the side of the camp that, in principle, by right of law, leaves a perspective open to perfectibility in the name of the ``political,'' democracy, international law, international institutions, and so forth. Even if this ``in the name of'' is still merely an assertion and a purely verbal committment. Even in its most cynical mode, such an assertion still lets resonate within it an invincible promise.
Derrida (writing against Islamic terror)
WHAT has this Western "Civilization" EVER given us? Name just ONE THING?
i mean, other than the Industrial Revolution
and Norman Borlag's Green Revolution
and Computers, and Telephones Telegraphs and the Information Age
and Moon.. I mean; SURE, it's given us the Moon
But other that Warm houses, Full plates, The ability to communicate (instantly) around the world..
And Travel to the Moon...
WHAT has this Western "Civilization" EVER given us? Name just ONE THING??
And penicillin.. Sure penicillin and modern medicine go without saying
From this opinion piece..
Although they have been remarkably effective at starving Iraqi, Iranian and now Afghan children while satisfying the American appetite for moral aggrandizement, modern economic sanctions have rarely curbed any regime’s behavior.
We've all known this for sometime, so why continue with these sanctions? The cruelty is the point.
Agreeing with Stephen Lindsay - the concept of "The West" is ancient. But I would go back earlier than the 9th century. There was a growing cultural divide in Christianity between the East and the West that one could trace back beginning with Constantine moving the Imperial capitol from Rome to Byzantium, renaming it after himself: Constantinople. The division was one of culture and language: Latin in the West and Greek in the East.
This division culminated in the Great Schism of 1054.
Sebastian said...
Until the day before yesterday the EU did not regard Poland and Hungary as part of the West.
That's pretty ahistorical and far too influenced by those countries being trapped behind the Iron Curtain. Both Poland and Hungary, along with Czechoslovakia, sought to reunite with Western Europe aka EU and NATO almost immediately after their liberation when the threat from Russia was at its lowest ebb before Putin. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was both the center of European civilization and its bulwark against Muslim/Ottoman expansion for centuries after the break-up of the HRE. Poland has a similarly long history of connection with Western Europe and resistance to Muslim and Tartar invasions. These countries were not deemed to be part of Europe 'the day before yesterday.'
You have a better case for the position of the Ukraine which branched off the European path of political and cultural development farther back and took a different path, including rebellions against the Polish princes that controlled its territory by conquest.
“John Maynard Keynes, a cosmopolitan liberal, was convinced there was a civilizational gulf even between Germans and Anglo-Saxons, while the Russians, though allied with the West, were well beyond the pale of Western modernity.”
Can we agree that Keynes was right?
America and other Western nations have zero in common with China and the nations run by the Religion of Peace.
And look how the Germans have been captured by the Greens.
Herodotus call your office.
The theme of Western civilization vs Eastern despotism goes back to the Persian wars of the 5th century BC, so it takes a particular ignorance of history to refer to the idea as "not particularly old."
"The West" has some pretty specific strands of thought and action, even if "Western Civilization" is kind of tendentious and academic, if not P.T. Barnum-like.
Europe vs. Asia: both terms from the ancient Greeks. They of course knew little of Asia, and less of other continents. Africa meant Egypt and a strip of coast across the north.
Greek vs. barbarian. Not necessarily as derogatory as it sounds. Speaks Greek, doesn't speak Greek. Persia and Egypt both came in for a lot of respect. Part of what made the Greeks different was their "openness": Herodotus shows an immense curiosity about foreign peoples and ways. He not only doesn't assume the Greek way is always best; he makes an argument that in various wars between Greeks and Asians (including Troy), the Greeks were more or less in the wrong. I don't know of any other ancient people who sustained such an argument, much less arrived at such a conclusion.
On matters of culture, the Romans imitated the Greeks about as slavishly (not really the right word) as possible. Then Christianity took over the Roman Empire, among other things bringing Judaism into "the West" for the first time. Maybe God has told us what to do, and everything else is a sin. It would be hard to discern such a thought in the ancient Greeks and Romans; they forgave themselves a certain amount of cruelty, including slavery; they were extremely unlikely to wage religious wars, which as we know can be extremely unforgiving.
Modern Europe gained a new awareness of many different peoples around the world, and the strangeness of their ways. Somehow it became attractive to think everyone should be like us, rather than say being left alone. Continental Europeans including Napoleon took up a serious study of foreign, including ancient, civilizations. Americans were more aware of having urgent work to do, settling or conquering a new land. Perhaps people who were more aware of dealing with actual or potential enemies were more likely to refer to "Western civilization" as if it was obviously not only a good thing, but the best available. The twentieth century taught a lot of people that Western something something might be more at risk than it had appeared to be before. Utopianism, usually of the left, promises us that if everyone adopts the same way of life in some important respects, probably a recent version of Western civilization even if it not called that, this will point the way to peace and justice.
One can disagree about whether it's a good idea, but it's silly to say that it only goes back a century. The concept is at least as old as the Crusades, when (as an earlier comment noted) western civilization was called Christendom. And those people saw themselves as the successors to the Romans.
Oh. I'm pretty sure that the 5th century BC Greeks had a good idea what western civilization was. Turns out. It was a pretty damn good idea.
The term may or not be very old, but the underlying idea is surely older than the term.
Well, the professors had been hard at work in Germany preaching their "war of 'liberation' against the capitalistic West". So there is merit to Germany being different in 1914, after 50 years of concerted effort. Many of those German professors were welcomed into American and British universities where they set to rebuild their work, and here we are more than seventy years later. They did try to move from nationalism to the Third international internationalist socialist.
"For more than seventy years the German professors of political science, history, law, geography and philosophy eagerly imbued their disciples with a hysterical hatred of capitalism, and preached the war of “liberation” against the capitalistic West. The German “socialists of the chair,” much admired in all foreign countries, were the pacemakers of the two World Wars. At the turn of the century the immense majority of the Germans were already radical supporters of socialism and aggressive nationalism. They were then already firmly committed to the principles of Nazism. What was lacking and was added later was only a new term to signify their doctrine.
When the Soviet policies of mass extermination of all dissenters and of ruthless violence removed the inhibitions against wholesale murder, which still troubled some of the Germans, nothing could any longer stop the advance of Nazism."
--von Mises, Ludwig (1947). Planned Chaos
I suspect he's talking about American universities, which became more conscious of being a part of Western civilization after the First World War. Before that, they were clearly a part of Western civilization, but they didn't think about the concept as much. "The Great War for Civilization" made it an issue.
Is Putin really bringing back Western civilization or was that al Qaeda and ISIS? And is "Western civilization" really back? In some ways this looks like a civil war within the modern technological world, something not so very different from WW I.
Western Civ. is a good thing.
The primacy of the individual, the idea of natural rights and natural law, the idea of private property and the rule of law, the idea of representative government, the intellectual commitment to open inquiry, etc. are all good things.
The phrase "Western Civilization" wasn't used much before 1900, because they was no need to. Civilization was "Western Civilizaion". Its only when Europe expanded to the Americas and began to colonize Africa and Asia, that it became neccessary to tack on the word "Western".
In any case, Russia is part of western civilization. it is Christian and almost entirely white. Putin has restored the Orthodox Church to its prior position. Putin's Russia in not the USSR. There's little reason for the USA to be in conflict with Russia. Our interests don't collide. that's why we on the same side in 1917 and 1942.
Again, all this hysteria and talk of war comes from the DC ruling class. They love war. They love playing their foreign policy games. Senators like Lindsey Graham loved going to Ukraine and playing Santa Claus with our tax money, and getting donations to their foundations and/or jobs for their relatives.
What the average American get out of war with Russia? Nothing.
Rodney Stark concludes his book The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success with this quote from a Chinese scholar:
One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world. We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.
Notice the word game of first saying "Western civilization" isn't that old, then talking about "Western modernity."
But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.
which, is WHY;
the Number One target for all Progressives/Socialists/Islamists is, and HAS TO BE, Christianity
The roots of Western Civilization go back to the Greeks when they broke from the rest of the world in their emphasis on the individual vs. the collective. Advances in natural philosophy (including science, medicine, philosophy, etc.) chipped away at the religions that worshipped many gods and pitted reason against religion. Christianity embraced reason fully in the Enlightenment which is when Western Civilization could readily be distinguished from other civilizations. The union of faith and reason is what propelled the West forward in all areas. Natural rights of individuals led the Founding Fathers to enshrine that concept into the Constitution, a set of rights the NO other country in the world enjoys to the extent we do. These are currently under attack by opponents to individual sovereignty and rule by the consent of the governed. The opponents can be viewed as having the regressive idea the the state gives you your rights and can take them away. These groups include the Progressives, the Left wing of the Democrat Party, globalists and followers of various ideas on the spectrum from selective socialism to communism. These opponents all want to put their boots on the throats of individual citizens, just as kings have always done. There will be no more revolutions that advance the human condition, only revolutions that put anti-individual rights autocrats in charge. That is why it is vital to maintain Western Civilization. Without it the world goes into a very dark place for individual human beings.
If Vlad revived 'The West' we're all gonna need new hats...
"From "Vladimir Putin Has Revived ‘The West.’ Is That a Good Thing?" by Thomas Meaney, who does not think it's a good thing."
No Russki ever killed me for calling him "nigger".
Critter, well said.
Like Gandhi said when asked what he thought about Western Civilization, "I think it would be a good idea." Some people see that as a dismissal, but it's really a critique of the gap between the ideals of Western Civilization and the realities of collective life.
Prof. Toynbee's system classifies Western Civilization as different from Eastern Orthodox from Islamic from Sinic u.s.w. and holds that only civilizations make sense as units of study. States, empires, etc are epiphenomena within a world of competing and interacting civilizations.
Of course Toynbee is in the tradition that saw WC as a melding of Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christianity, in which the main contribution of the Roman Empire was to enable the spread of Christianity.
McNeill's standard The Rise of the West is still good on the big developments and divergences.
The West is Best, which is why so many people want to come here.
Ernest said..
"Yer goddamn right. Now say my name.
Standard writing: This is how I define something. This is why that something is wrong.
However, logic suggests that if the definition is wrong, the conclusion is faulty.
I suspect Thos. Meaney is in no hurry to move to a country where "Western" Mores are NOT the norm, unless he's thinking of retiring somewhere where the dollar stretches farther.
The Soviets were ultra, fanatically liberal and secular with a left-wing (i.e. authoritarian) ideological orientation; but, without a capitalist, market-oriented economy to optimize and reconcile natural and human resources, they could not sustain their delusions of grandeur, and failed to mitigate the progressive path and grade.
And, the Chinese communists, under Xi, annexation of sovereign territory, violent border disputes with democratic nations, diversity [dogma], environmental arbitrage, one-child/selective-child, and practical and actual slavery, which will command sanctions, next, never, to mitigate their progress.
Journalist: What do you think of Western civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
Me, paraphrasing Churchill: Western Civilization is the worst civilization, except for every other civilization in history.
From "Vladimir Putin Has Revived ‘The West.’ Is That a Good Thing?" by Thomas Meaney, who does not think it's a good thing.
Well of course not!
He's a leftists and leftists hate America
After all, America lets the little people ignore their "betters", and that just can't be allowed!
Michael said...
From this opinion piece..
Although they have been remarkably effective at starving Iraqi, Iranian and now Afghan children while satisfying the American appetite for moral aggrandizement, modern economic sanctions have rarely curbed any regime’s behavior.
We've all known this for sometime, so why continue with these sanctions? The cruelty is the point.
Funny you should post that:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1501676859741904898.html
Many argue that sanctions are "ineffective". That’s false. They are already highly effective in undermining Russian military efforts and can be made even more efficient. They can guarantee that Russia loses this war if they are goal-oriented and not moral crusade-oriented
Read it and then feel invited to tell us where he's wrong
Greg:
Your right wing friends are letting you down. Letting us down. I haven't heard anything from Drago in a while.
Russian power is much much more dependent on trade than middle eastern countries so the sanctions will be more effective.
Great civilizations just keep moving west. Egypt, Greece, Rome, Spain, England, America, then - guess who - and not Taiwan.
"Russian power is much more dependent on trade than middle eastern countries . . . " says Howard.
Err, no. Most middle eastern countries will starve in short order if they can't sell their crude to the developed world. Russia is a continent-sized country with industrial and agricultural capacities that those cursed with oil alone can only envy, and has been semi-autarkic since around forever.
Without the developed West most middle eastern countries would barely have economies at all; that can't be said for Russia, whatever else is true.
"Great civilizations just keep moving west. Egypt, Greece, Rome . . . ."
Nope. Egypt left the wastes of Libya alone and contested powers south, north, and east. Greece went farther east than west and the great centers of the Hellenistic world were all to the east (you may have heard of Alexander of Macedon). In Rome everyone knew that fame and fortune (especially fortune) lay to the east; the only things to the west were cold, fog, and barbarians.
The supposed centrality of the West is entirely a matter of post-Columbian developments. The Ancients would have been amused.
"There's little reason for the USA to be in conflict with Russia. Our interests don't collide. that's why we [were] on the same side in 1917 and 1942." Those were two different "Russias". And neither one was a good ally: The Imperial Russians faded fast in WWI, and the Soviet Russians cooperated with Hitler to take over part of Eastern Europe, and when Hitler betrayed them they took US aid and used it to conquer a new empire in Eastern Europe.
Ukraine was very recently a country trying to experience freedom. Now Russia is doing its best to destroy them. No, we shouldn't be on "their side,"
Is "Western civilization" really back? The larger picture is that Chinese influence and Chinese concepts are in the ascendant -- in the West as well as in the East -- or perhaps we are seeing a fusion of what remains of Western individualism with what Chinese collectivism has become.
"...a set of values was now under siege from new threats: migrants, terrorists and moral relativists."
I thought it was odd how he said "migrants" instead of "immigrants." Modern Western civilization is built on immigration. Just look at any major Western city and it's filled with things that immigrants have brought in from other cultures. Most immigrants assimilate into Western civilization but also add some of their own culture to it.
The thing about the term, migrant, is that most people think of a migrant as a temporary worker who will not stay long term. A migrant doesn't assimilate into the culture because they're not staying.
As the French have noticed, immigrants who come in and are intolerant of other cultures, like Western civilization, are a threat to Western civilization because they refuse to integrate into the society. It actually becomes like a mini foreign occupation.
Howard said...
Greg:
Russian power is much much more dependent on trade than middle eastern countries so the sanctions will be more effective.
Narr said...
Err, no. Most middle eastern countries will starve in short order if they can't sell their crude to the developed world. Russia is a continent-sized country with industrial and agricultural capacities that those cursed with oil alone can only envy, and has been semi-autarkic since around forever.
Russia does not have an actual functioning industrial sector.
It's a kleptocracy based on resource extraction and closeness to Putin.
No one close to Putin is even remotely capable of successfully running a high tech industrial company.
This thread explains it as well as I could, and better than I have time to:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1501360272442896388.html
Industrial sector sanctions will cripple Russia, because pretty much Russia's entire industrial sector is dependent upon the West.
Isaac Asimov described the situation well in his "Foundation and Empire" story about the State that went to war with the Foundation after first making their industrial sector dependent upon the Foundation
I said 'capacities.' That they are wasted is another matter.
The shithole countries of the Middle East generally lack even the capacity, and many of them are essentially charity cases.
If the Western industrial sanctions cripple Russia, fine. We'll see.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा