I'm listening to a course in World History, and the professor is discussing Latin America in the 19th century, and he raised this point: Is Latin America an actual branch of the culture of Western Civilization, or are the nations there byproducts of Western Imperialism.

The question itself actually surprised me. The professor said the question was often debated among specialists in Latin American history (he didn't say whether these debates came from historians native to Latin America or not however).

The professor listed the pros (arguments that Latin America is indeed a distinct Western Civilization) as:

1. Latin American high culture (in other words aspects of religion, music, dance, government, education that clearly have a unique Latin American identity and aren't just borrowed from some other culture).


He listed the cons as:

1. The fact that Latin American cultural contributions tended to be more on the humanities side than the science side.
2. Economics: here he makes the claim that Latin American economies don't look "particularly western at all". I think he's mostly referring to a "western economy" as one based on industrializing and producing manufactured goods.

He listed the political front as "just plain mixed", or a wash of things that could be seen as pro's and cons.

His conclusion on the topic was that the answer was mixed, that Latin America was "in some ways" a Western Civilization, though mired down by economic dependency (like Africa) and colonial interference (like Africa and the middle east).

So, after that lengthy introduction, and knowing that this board has quite a few Latin Americans present, I thought I'd toss this out for debate: is Latin America a Western Civilization? an Imperial by-product? something else entirely?

Chuck

I would say that culturally it is certainly a part of western civilization. It is however a deeply stagnated civilization, that is mired in mentalities and cultural behaviours that the rest of the western world has abandoned.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI would say that culturally it is certainly a part of western civilization. It is however a deeply stagnated civilization, that is mired in mentalities and cultural behaviours that the rest of the western world has abandoned.

Sounds like Ireland

Quote from: SosthenesSounds like Ireland

Not so much these days. Ireland has a far more dynamic culture than many people give it credit for. International perception of course is an entirely different matter.

Quote from: DrewNot so much these days. Ireland has a far more dynamic culture than many people give it credit for. International perception of course is an entirely different matter.

So it isn't entirely populated by pregnant teenage leprechauns?

But on a more serious note, what _is_ a distinct western civilization? Distinct from what?

Quote from: SosthenesSo it isn't entirely populated by pregnant teenage leprechauns?

Only at the end of the Catholic rainbow...

Quote from: SosthenesSo it isn't entirely populated by pregnant teenage leprechauns?

But on a more serious note, what _is_ a distinct western civilization? Distinct from what?

I think, based on what I've listened of the course so far, he means is:

1. Something that hasn't been so fucked up by outside influence that you can refer to it as a distinct culture (Africa and the Middle East might fall into this category, at least they would imo)

2. Something Western (so Russia would be a distinct culture, but it's not a Western Civilization).

Basically, he's asking if: A) Latin America is part of Western Civilization at all and B) is Latin America really something organic, and not just a hodgepodge of artificial countries that popped into existence because of imperial interference (again, a country like Iraq springs to mind here).

It's a legit question, and he doesn't just ask it of Latin America.

For example, he also asks if America has its own culture, or are we just a weird offshoot of Britain.

He also points out that even though Russia originally (and very consciously) modeled itself on Byzantium, it's not that much like it anymore.

Also, even though Russia is close to China and has a lot of dealings with China, it's consciously rejected Chinese influence, whereas Japan for much of its history tried to imitate China, then began to consciously reject it.

In the Middle East, Iran today considers itself the inheritor of a unique Persian culture that it considers one of the great, unique cultures of history, and something that gives it the strength to stand up to "lesser" cultures in the West.

These are some of the topics he addresses throughout the course on the cultural front.

Hope that explanation helps lol.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckIt's a legit question, and he doesn't just ask it of Latin America.

For example, he also asks if America has its own culture, or are we just a weird offshoot of Britain.

This is a really, really hard question. Basically, you have to define some almost arbitrary points of reference for the "unique contributions". This is made harder by the fact that cultures continue to mix. A lot of the pop culture of western countries is definitely American in origin...

Quote from: DrewOnly at the end of the Catholic rainbow...

Cork?

Quote from: SosthenesThis is a really, really hard question. Basically, you have to define some almost arbitrary points of reference for the "unique contributions". This is made harder by the fact that cultures continue to mix. A lot of the pop culture of western countries is definitely American in origin...

Yeah, when he talks about culture, he's definitely talking "big picture".

As an example, he refers to "the Classical Mediterranean culture". Here he's referring to Ancient Greece and Rome as a single culture.

So obviously, if that level of variation counts as one culture, then all American culture could be considered British as well.

But really, the course just seems to be using culture to GIVE you that big picture view of history.

He covers history from the discovery of agriculture to the 21st century in 18 hours too, so there's a lot of gloss going on

The only thing I can contribute is this reminescence from Mexico City in 1995.  Presented without comment.

I think the key of defining a seperate culture is whether the culture is a product of the interaction of various other cultures, and if it has also developed some things that are unique and unlike any of its parent cultures.

both North and South America would qualify by that standard.

Also, South America is certainly NOT one big monolithic blob; it is divisible into distinct sections that have VASTLY different cultures.  Uruguay and Argentina are radically different (culturally speaking) from Ecuador or Bolivia.

RPGPundit

As a Historian who studies Latin America, I can attest to the fact that there is a debate going on in that community addressing this question.  I have my own opinions on this, shared with many other historians of the cultures/nationalities involved.

I am more interested in the debate now that part of the US can be considered a Latin American country ruthlessly colonized by Anglo-Americans.

I don't quite get the point of the argument, though. So Latin America is a unique culture (or not). So what? Does it win a prize? Will other parts of the world invite it to parties?

Quote from: SosthenesI don't quite get the point of the argument, though. So Latin America is a unique culture (or not). So what? Does it win a prize? Will other parts of the world invite it to parties?

It's an academic argument.  Hence the phrase "purely academic."