Talk:Western world

Discussion

Geezus this is horrible. Can't this be made meaningful or relevant? I mean, it's a start, yes, but "Western world means white people or Christian"? Come on.... nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 02:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This reads like an apologist piece

Seriously? Even for this wiki the special pleading and homogenizing of the entire third world is a bit too much. Liberal fluff piece is what it is, lol. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Oxy, do you have some kind of beef with this wiki and/or it's members? Kinda sounds like you do. Twodots (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The article still reads like liberal apologia. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

How is this liberal apologia? If anything, it's Western apologia. Twodots (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

this isnt an article, its someones essay. its just stupid to say the western world did this, did that, but never done that and is only the place that does this. its idiotic. human civilisation is something like 6 thousand years old. 'progress' however you wnt to define for most it was not universal. advances on one side of the globe would be unheard of on the other side. the progress made in one empire might be forgotten when the empire collapsed. sometimes rediscovered later, or maybe not.

for progress to be universal and not just a local thing, communication and travel around the globe progress to a point where one nation could communicate and trade with another on the other side of the world. news and ideas and technolology could then spread and impact over the whole the world not just small part.

this point was reached around the the time the americas were discovered. this was also the time european powers were beginning their conquest of the planet, until european nations controlled 84% of the globe. this the time were european nations began smothering any kind of social progress made in their newly conquered lands, destroying the cultures completely in the americas and in much of africa, everywhere else indigenious culture was dominated and made subserviant to their european masters.

this all coincided with the appearance of technologies like the printing press, making the rate progress of all sorts exponential, giving an edge to colonising europeans, who consolidated that edge by keeping the colonies under the heel preventing them from benefiting.

every mark of progress people credit the west - from the enlightenment onwards, the west made sure such ideas, like the rights of man and the like, could only thrive in the west. you dont want the natives in discussing their human rights and democracy. as democracies and rights progressed in the west, it was only post ww2 when the west finally decided to allow their colonial posessions such grand ideas.

only the western world abolished slavery because its only at this time when truly a global empire could do so and it effect the entire planet. and it was only after the west had milked slavery to an unprecedented degree beforehand, and was pretty much past its usefulness.

and now post ww2, the colonies now independent nations again, we cant talk of the superiority of western culture because of the liberal democracies of europe compared to the backward, corrupt, authoritarian governments of asia or africa. the western world nurtured their democracies letting them grow and evolve into what we have today. in africa and asia we stole and brutalised and ruled with an iron fist. after independence, why are we suprised that many former colonies are governed in a similar fashion to how we governed them? and cold war politics continued keeping former colonies down.

in summary, much of what we credit the west for is only important to our understanding of the world today because the west had dominated most of world making sure it was western voices that were heard. and we cannot crow to much about the liberal democracies of the western world as a sign moral superiority - sure, id rather live in a european country for their freedoms and rights and safety, but everything that allowed europe to become such a place the western world denied to the subjugated peoples of the colonies, brutalising, enslaving, dominating them, and when west finally let them go, we still interfered and fucked them over.

this is all over simplified and no doubt i ramble, but we cannot point anyone thing and say this is only possible because of the western world. we have to look at how the western world came to be and its effect on the rest of world, and the legacy that we live with today. we cant sum it all up in 'the good and the bad'. it doesnt work like that. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Seconding; this is entry is an atrocity. Needs a complete rewrite. The entire "the good and the bad" section is a load of garbage.Monochroma (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

On Western "decadence"

Why do Easterners and pro-Eastern people label LGBT rights, human rights, democracy, progressivism etc. as Western "decadence"? I've heard these claims in mostly right wing Serbian posts and of other nationalities.

First off, these things are not that bad. Secondly, these don't have to be Western or exclusive to the West just because these things originated in the West. I believe these values should be global.

I get it, the Western countries colonized and butchered countries on the East and overthrew their governments. But not all things that come from the West should not be labeled as "Western degeneracy".

The hate towards the West is to the point that some people label activism for LGBT rights in non-Western countries as "Western imperialism". Even vaccines.

Alas, the Western countries, such as USA, UK, Poland, France etc, are also getting more conservative. Former in the name of "Western values" such as Christianity, which is ironic since it came from the East. 🇷🇸 Serbiter (Wort wort wort) 18:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)