At various points in time both the USA and Western Europe were kingdoms ruled by corrupt authoritarian kings who violently repressed their own populations.
That does not justify saying that Zimbabwe and North Korea are more similar to western nations than to anyone else.
I’m not aware I made that statement. I was simply saying that being corrupt and repressive does not make one non-Western as Western nations have been there themselves.
I guess it’s an essentially contested concept based upon whether a person thinks Western is defined based upon 1) History, in which case Israel, South Africa, the America’s, Aus and NZ are in 2) Ideology, then any democratic nation with respect for human rights, the rule of law and free markets could be included, maybe Japan, Korea or India 3) or Race, in which case its White people (fairly obvious list)
If you consider the Territories to be a part of Israel, then maybe you’re right. Of course, if you believe that the Territories are part of Israel then politically, that puts you in the right wing of the Likud party, but hey, whatever floats your boat. Either way, the parts of Israel that are inarguably Israel, meaning the parts on my side of the Green Line, are definitely a western country.
As for financial support - some western countries, America helps protect by stationing troops. With us they send money to buy (American) weapons. If anything, our way is better.
(Oh, and the residents of the Territories have decent access to education, medicine and housing, some of it provided by international agencies, and some provided by Israel).
OK, I’m sorry for the hijack. This isn’t an Israel thread.
+1
That doesn’t define the west. There are some poor countries in Europe, like Albania and Armenia, that are Third World countries, actually, but are part of Europe, and as such, part of the West.
The West has been for the most part of its history pretty poor, and even a decade After WW II there was hunger in Europe.
So, don’t be blind.
Israel has an Afroasiatic language and culture. I don’t see how it could be considered “Western” more than Saudi Arabia or Lebanon. Japan is not Western either, no matter how advanced it is.
Getting back to the OP…I haven’t read Huntington, but I think there might be an interesting negative correlation between his idea of “Western”, and the percentage of “indigenous” population in a country (this applies better to Latin America than to other regions.)
For example, Guatemala, Bolivia, and Ecuador are rather less “Western” than Chile, Argentina, and Costa Rica. Mexico is a funny mix, as are Colombia and Honduras.
Just a thought. Indigenous peoples are not all that numerous, but they (or, by contrast, their absence) have a real impact on the politics, self-images, and outlooks of many of the states in the Americas.
Of course he would be correct that most countries of Latin America have a real and interesting heritage of Amerindian origin, but he shouldn’t forget that Western culture is dominant here. Even in Guatemala or Bolivia.
But mr. Huntington shouldn’t have forgotten his own country is heavily influenced by Africans, by Chinese and East Asians, and by other non-Western minorities. He shouldn’t had forgotten his own country has Indigenous roots, and that the first democracy in the hemisphere was developed by the Iroquois. Perhaps mr. Huntigton drunk root beer and eat syrup when a child. Perhaps had sailed in a canoe or eat corn in the cob. If so, he was a blind.
Mr. Huntigton shouldn’t have forgotten, either, that his barbarian Germanic ancestors were domesticated by the Romans, who where the original Westerners, and that his language is not as Roman, like Spanish is.
The term “Western” isn’t used in treaties, policies, or any such legal foreign relation matters and as Dopers are pointing out, is largely subjective.
But since you want to go there: are you blind? Read the bolded print.
Albania is in Eastern Europe. Armenia used to be part of the Soviet Union. Where in those two facts do you see “Western”? Did I say “being part of Europe” was the same as “Western”? No. Apparently you think that being in the continent of Europe makes you a Western nation, but most political scientists don’t. Huntington especially didn’t.
Maybe you should read Huntington before you start getting so mixed up. :rolleyes: There is a difference in the term Western as it applies to political science circles when discussing international relations and Western at as is refers to “culture” and “300 years of a nation’s history”. :rolleyes:
Context is key here.
I’m not going to get into a debate with you about the evolution of Modern Hebrew, but so?
Explain? 
Because of trading blocs, shared Western Civ values, European influence, and its form of government. That’s why some political scientists include it. Yes, Huntingon’s theory was that the next phase of war and IR will be about culture.
BUT since nothing is so clear cut in the humanities, he had to explain himself a little. What he saw was a correlation between “culture” and economic development and government. Israel he didn’t really put in any category, but said it could be considered like a Western state. Now, most political scientists who use Huntington’s theory (or modern theories of “West”) group Israel in with the “West”.
anyway, the OP asked us why Huntington didn’t include Latin America in the “West” and you don’t seem to understand the context. This is not a geography lesson.
Western is the civilization of Europe. Albania is a lot more Western than the U.S.
Huntington was wrong. I loved when he was ridiculized by Carlos Fuentes 
If you ask me who is Carlos Fuentes, I will just answer who was Huntington… 
According to Carlos Fuentes, the reason is simple: Huntington was an anti-Mexican racist. Something like an academic version of Steve Sailer.
According to you.
I’d like to hear that political science lecture. Just because Albania’s geographical roots are in the Ottoman empire doesn’t make Albania more Western.
Using that logic, *Israel *is more Western than the U.S since Jewish philosophy predates Greek Antiquity and lays one of the foundations of Western thought.
How could Huntington be wrong about a definition he created?
No. I’ll just ask you what ridiculized means.
He didn’t create the definition of Western Civilization.
He simply was confusing, like many Americans do, the definition of “Western Civilization” with the military alliance during the Cold World known as “The West”
If you want a brilliant answer to Huntington by Carlos Fuentes, just let me know.
Hahaha. I don’t know if this was a knowing or unwitting diss, but underneath his sciencey-sounding talk (how “Political Science” gets away with calling itself that, I’ll never know), what you described above is about the extent of his so-called scholarship.
no. i would say a whole lot of westeners settled there and turned native.
He created a post-Cold War political theorist definition of Western Civ that every polisci kid has been required to read in the last 30 years. You can’t say his definition is wrong if it is his theory.
You can say his theory is wrong.
anyway, the litmus tests he applied to said cultural civilizations still stands when it comes to Latin America.
if you can’t see political science as a science
then you’re not a very good scientist.