BF2S Forums What is the West?! What is the East?!

this part of (human) geography is actually always changing. of course, all of these categories and regions are total constructions - social, political, and ultimately ideological. there is definitely a lot of pseudo-science, quasi-empiricism, and ultimately "pulling [stuff] out of ass[es]" going on in these convenient labels (which is all they are; they only have a use-value in a pragmatic, shared-assumptive mode).

i read a review in a journal a few years back, i think it was by some stanford historian or political scientist, that basically makes the case that even the continents themselves are empty, fairly arbitrary constructions. our notions of 'continents' as human regions, of course, doesn't correspond to any tectonic or geological reality: where does europe end and asia (minor) begin? sure isn't along the same line as the plate boundaries. i think he's called this little niche area of study and consideration 'meta-geography'. it's quite a postmodern bent, really: deconstructing and unpacking previously-held assumptions, in order to basically just expose them as arbitrary social significations (ultimately all predicated in fancy sorts of language games, but that's an extra turn of the screw that isn't really relevant here). it's the mapping equivalent of historiography - the history of history. it's good to have this self-awareness, because at the end of the day it shows us that all these divisions are meaningless, and even at best are only a little bit ideologically slanted. we're all just, like, one people, maaan, and there's only one earth - one gaia.

not to mention that these rigidly drawn lines and models/schemas only serve to calcify and retard human progress and collaboration. what is the point in breaking up the world into little segments, when we have all been atomized already under the indiscriminate fluid exchange of commerce? the global market doesn't care which direction you pray in, or what your culinary culture is like, compared to your neighbours.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-10 05:19:01)

My first thought was not a journal review, obviously, but this video from a while back.

That said, the map in OP is nothing too shocking. If you asked a high schooler to divy up the world, I expect you'd get something similar, and the status quo isn't an especially novel idea.

Seems to be a pretty good map, if you are emphasizing cultural differences on a global as opposed to regional scale.  Religion seems to influence culture quite a bit.

Last edited by Spearhead (2013-03-10 12:21:21)

do you think it's really pertinent to classify countries/regions based on specific religious denominations? are there really any characteristically 'protestant' and 'catholic' countries nowadays, in the age of secularisation and modernity? it seems pointless to me to divide countries up by whether they are subscribers of arianism or some such esoteric wankery.

Macbeth wrote:

Other than region how much are Filipinos like westerners?

I could ask a mate, as his wife is half Filipino and they spent part of their honeymoon there a couple months ago.

Huntington... Lol. To quote Said, "the clash of civilizations" book is pretty much a bloated version of his earlier essay of the same name.

Don't even try to draw a map like this. His thesis is shit and so is the map.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

do you think it's really pertinent to classify countries/regions based on specific religious denominations? are there really any characteristically 'protestant' and 'catholic' countries nowadays, in the age of secularisation and modernity? it seems pointless to me to divide countries up by whether they are subscribers of arianism or some such esoteric wankery.

Yes, I do.  Tracing back a countries/regions specific (and dominant) religious denomination to other historical/cultural influences can explain a lot.  Not that there's any difference on the surface, but, like macbeth said, he considers all of the America's to be one culture/cultural group.  I say thats hogwash.  First comes language, then come religion, and after that, religious denomination.  Catholic/protestant is a pretty big split, signifying the split between Northern and Southern Europe.  Which I think you will agree, exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages

I'd say that those two right there are pretty good changes you could make to the map.

Last edited by Spearhead (2013-03-11 09:06:17)

"West" in a geopolitical sense is regarded by many as meaning western europe plus non-european countries with an english-speaking white majority (Canada, USA, Australia, NZ).  Some people include countries with strong western influences as well.  I would say religion is slipping as a defining factor, at least in the "West".

I was going to make a thread about that but I already knew the reactions of some members so I didn't even bother

Thats not what I was saying.....

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

I think the map splits eastern europe / asia into too many different groups.

You do know that India and China make up 2.5 billion people?  And you think its split into too many groups?  lol

Thats almost 10 ten times the size of the united states.

btw i find it funny how papua new guinea is somehow "western" because it used to be part of Australia.