Once again, like every time the civilizational argument is brought up.
Is Spain part of the West, if so why isn’t Argentina or Chile. Latin America is much much closer to Spain than Spain is to America, and Spain/Italy/Greece are closer to each other and to Latin America than to the West.
The fact you think Europe+North America is the west is tather telling, because you are still thinking in nation-state mode. Latin America is either part of the West or Souther Europe isn’t. Also, Japan is closer to America in terms of thinking that Germany and America are.
This might look like nitpicking but I think that while China or the Arab world might be a civilization-states, the West/LatAm isn’t. It is a continuum of Westphalian states united not by their similarity but more by their opposition to the rest of civilization-states.
"Behind this distinction lies the idea that the Iberian Peninsula itself was not properly Western. Indeed, for many, Spain and Portugal did not fully belong to the West. This, not only because of the many centuries in which they were under Muslim control, but because the Renaissance and the Eighteenth-Century Enlightenment, scarcely reached them. . . . upon arrival to the Americas, Iberians did not form a settlers’ society as the English did in Northern America, Australia or New Zealand. Much to the contrary, they mingled. Initially, with the indigenous population. Subsequently, with the slaves brought from Africa. This gave rise to an acculturated society. In other words, Latin America would represent a fringe version of the Iberian fringe model. . . . Even accepting the limitations of Iberians as full members of the Western World, and adding to it the acculturation process that took place in the New World, Latin Americans still remain Westerners. They are, however, within its periphery."
In terms of "civilization-states," Europe + North America has functioned as a distinct (if by no means fully unified) geopolitical unit in a way that Europe + North America + Latin America has not. Obviously, this is most apparent in NATO's role during the Cold War through recent history. Certainly, the West is less unified than China, but it's less divided than the Muslim world, which is riven by Sunni vs Shi'ite and Persian vs Arab rivalries. The Trump era may mark the end of the West as a geopolitical unit, which is a shame. Japan is certainly allied with the West, but it's too historically distinct to be considered fully Western.
Alfredo Toro is making the exact point I was targetting at first., Latin America (and to a lesser extent Spain) is unique enough but still Western to the core (Christian, Roman, European). I recognized Huntington's map and that is what triggered my comment, your article is a fantastic piece but it suffers from the Anglo problem of trying to create a "Western Civilization-State" where there isn't one really. You are mixing cultural entities with geopolitical ones.
Japan + NATO form a cohesive geopolitical unit since the end of WW2 yet culturally you see that Japan, North America and Europe were pretty distinct. Even in Europe you have an incredibly stark cultural difference between North-Western Europe (the original EEC founders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community) and Southern Europeans yet both are considered "Western". Similarly there is a sharp cultural separation between the Catholic and Protestant countries which doesn't exist among Islamic countries. An Egyptian, Moroccan, Iraqi, Bosniak and Kosovar have far more in common than they do with their christian counterparts. Here only non-Arab speaking Shiias are different enough.
The West as a cultural unit (the basis of Huntigton's work and map) is more divided than both the Islamic, Confucian and Indian civilization-states. As geopolitical units I concede your point. But civilization-states are based more on culture than geopolitical arrangements and such stuff has been common historically.
These arguments are why I advanced that the West is unique in the sense that it is a continuum of Westphalian states which share cultural traits between neighbouts but are not nearly as unified as China, India or the Arabo-Islamic world is (non-Arab muslims are to the Islamic civilization what Latin America is to the western). This is why both Poland, France, Greece and the US are part of the larger West when none of these countries even overlaps in language, religion or culture.
There are certainly cultural differences between Southern and Northern Europe, as well as Europe and North America, but I don't think they're as vast as you suggest. For example, take a look at the Kinship Intensity Index map at https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/SchulzHenrichetalTheChurchIntensiveKinshipGlobaPsychologicalVariation2019.pdf -- it shows a quite stark difference between the West and "the rest." There are exceptions in pockets like the Balkans, but in general, the West has unusually low levels of kinship intensity (ie, interpersonal embeddedness in a clan or tribe) and a uniquely individualistic psychological profile. Poland, France, Germany, and the US may not share a language, but they do share broad values and traditions, which are rooted in a common civilizational history (Greece, Judea, Rome, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc).
Joining your thought I am familiar with the WEIRD brand of arguments for the common Christian argument, for the matter my favourite underrated French demographer/sociologist Emmanuel Todd already gives a nice classification of cultures per family type https://pseudoerasmus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/todd-systemes-familiaux-monde.jpg (sorry for the french). You can see that the West and Japan have a similar classification of family which gives a better argument than just the Church forbidding cousin marriage. You can see the West by the family type.
But the devil is in the details and they impact life much in the day to day. Just as a simple example, the more South you go in Spain (and Greece/Italy from friends childhoods) your society stops being dictated by guilt and it is closer to a shame based society. You don't do things because they are right and that is how God told you (Christian mentality) but you do them because what if an external actor discovers you and punishes you. One of the differentiators in the West is that guilt is a strong motor of social interactions and societal rules, while in Islamic and Sinic societies it is shame (what will the neighbours think). In Spain they have a name for this, la Picaresca.
Just like in the document you shared, only the inheritors of the Carolingian empire (and England) are truly Western, everything else is part of the gradient between West and the border civilizations. The differences are not vast but they are higher once again than what exists in the Islamic and Sinic civilizations.
Arab Muslims and Confucian-based countries are pretty homogoneous, put a Moroccan in Iraq, a Lybian in Syria and there would be practically no difference (aside from the language, Arabic dialects are tough). A Spaniard in Germany, or Swede in Italy feels the difference regardless of language. The last point is something any European student in Erasmus can tell you.
Right, there is always going to be a gradient between civilizations and cultures. Some countries are more classically Western than others. But would you not agree that a Spaniard is still culturally closer to an Englishman than a Moroccan? "Europe," like any concept, has fuzzy boundaries, but it still indicates a sociological, not just geographical, reality. As for homogeneity, certainly the Middle East is more homogeneous than Europe by virtue of Arab imperialism. But a Moroccan Berber is not interchangeable with an Iraqi Kurd.
The Japanese are still quite psychologically distinct from Westerners, despite sharing a similar family structure. Both Japan and Korea began copying WEIRD civil institutions in modern times (eg, polygynous marriage was banned during the Meiji Restoration). So while certain East Asian countries have adopted Western norms to aid their own development, these norms are not as deeply rooted, so there is still a profound cultural gulf between civilizations.
Once again, I agree with what you say but my only comment is you underestimate the homogeneity of the other civilizations and overestimate the one of the West.
Ofc a Spaniard is closer to an Englishman than to a Moroccan because of Christianity, but when you go a bit deeper he is still very foreign to the Anglo spirit.
As for the Islamic example I get your point, and you are right but unluckily you choose the 2 worst examples to compare because they are one of the few interchangeable non-Arabic ethnicities. I have Amazigh family and interacted much with Kurds in Germany and let me tell you, they are both mountain people rejecting the societies they live in, defending a strong tribal identity and pre-Arabic language as well as being discriminated against by the larger society (Arabized Amazighs in Morocco and Turks/Iraqis for the Kurds). If you took a Tamazight/Tashelhiyt and put him in between Kurds aside from the language it would be much easier than a Spaniard in Poland. The homogeneity of Islam also creates a homogeneity of those who are oppressed by it. Add to that than in Islamic countries you have 2 poles of identity, your tribe and your religion while in Europe your identity is usually tied to your nation/people at large.
As for the East Asians yeah, they are in their own world and I can’t speak for it as I am not familiar with the Confucian world.
I appreciate that Trump uses bluster as a tactic, but what was the point in this most recent case? Canada is not a major source of fentanyl or illegal immigration into the US. In exchange for calling off the tariffs, Trump "won" a Canadian border security package that had already been announced, plus some additional measures that could have been attained through normal negotiation. Was that worth the cost of alienating an ally (and all of America's allies who are watching)? In the long run, is this going to make Canada and other allies want to increase or decrease their economic ties to the US? Will it make them more or less likely to support American foreign policy? The answer is not good for America in the long term, even if there are apparent short-term wins.
Actually there are serious problems with northern border security, particularly with bad actors coming across. Look to his last administration as regards his policies, successes, and failures. You’re always going to get the bravado. Nobody else would put up with the abuse that he’s taken. His personality may alienate a lot of people, but he gets things done. Canada is also a hotbed of antisemitism and leftist nonsense right now. Some of what Trump is doing is making Trudeau look bad intentionally to weaken the liberals up there, who are essentially anti-Trump and vocally so. I mean Trudeau resigned a few days after he met with Trump. Not a coincidence. I don’t defend Trump because I’m crazy about his style. I think he’s a net positive and what we need right now. But he’s taken on a Herculean task to fix what’s broken here and nobody else could do what he’s doing.
In 2024, about 1.5% of Border Patrol apprehensions were at the northern border. Sure, you can say that's 1.5% too many, but it's off base to lump Canada in with Mexico. I'm not here to defend Trudeau or Canada's problems (I've written about them at https://1000yearview.substack.com/p/the-limits-of-canadian-post-nationalism). But the Liberals were already expected to lose the next Canadian election. If anything, Trump's bullying helps them, since they can draw on renewed anti-American sentiment (the Conservatives in Canada tend to be more pro-American). See The Economist (https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2025/02/04/the-trump-tariff-saga-offers-canadas-liberals-a-lifeline): "in recent weeks the Liberals have shown a flicker of life, thanks in part to a politician even less popular in Canada than Mr Trudeau: Donald Trump." I'm not against everything Trump does, and as I write in this post, I appreciate "America First" if it means a less interventionist, more national interest-oriented policy. But it's in the national interest to have allies.
Absolutely we need allies. We have national interests they extend beyond our borders. But Trump and center right populism is the trend now. It’s rearranging the political landscape in front of our eyes. Thankfully. A lot of the stuff with Trump is flashbulb stuff. It’s junk food news. It doesn’t stick. Canada is not going to break ties with the U.S.A. over Trump’s provocations. Although I do get the impression that many Canadians prefer to think of themselves as more European in orientation. Canada is not in the same league as Mexico as a source of illegals or contraband, but let’s recognize that the Southern border numbers have been insane, numbering in the millions. A few dozen terrorists can still ruin your day.
Canada won't break ties with the US over Trump's provocations, but it will seek to trade more with other countries instead (see https://theconversation.com/trumps-trade-war-is-forcing-canada-to-revive-a-decades-old-plan-to-reduce-u-s-dependence-248433). If Trump's goal is to get other countries to buy more American goods, imposing (or even threatening) punitive tariffs will have the opposite effect. That's the problem with the "flashbulb stuff"; it does stick in that allies will seek to hedge their bets if they view the US as an unreliable partner (or not a partner at all).
You aren’t wrong, but the political headwinds are with Trump at the moment, so I think it will blow over. Canadians are suffering from some of the same domestic economic issues we are and they are looking to revitalize their economy on a more free market basis. They tend to like Trump. There is also a big dichotomy between the East and the West in Canada. The westerners tend to be much more laissez faire as regards economics.
The Thomas de Waal link in your footnote is broken, try this: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/05/the-end-of-the-near-abroad?lang=en
Fixed, thanks.
Once again, like every time the civilizational argument is brought up.
Is Spain part of the West, if so why isn’t Argentina or Chile. Latin America is much much closer to Spain than Spain is to America, and Spain/Italy/Greece are closer to each other and to Latin America than to the West.
The fact you think Europe+North America is the west is tather telling, because you are still thinking in nation-state mode. Latin America is either part of the West or Souther Europe isn’t. Also, Japan is closer to America in terms of thinking that Germany and America are.
This might look like nitpicking but I think that while China or the Arab world might be a civilization-states, the West/LatAm isn’t. It is a continuum of Westphalian states united not by their similarity but more by their opposition to the rest of civilization-states.
The map is based on Samuel Huntington's work. Exact civilizational boundaries can, of course, be debated. Alfredo Toro Hardy makes a good case for why Latin America is largely Western, but also distinct from the core West, and even Iberia (https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/04/04/2024/latin-america-between-western-world-and-global-south):
"Behind this distinction lies the idea that the Iberian Peninsula itself was not properly Western. Indeed, for many, Spain and Portugal did not fully belong to the West. This, not only because of the many centuries in which they were under Muslim control, but because the Renaissance and the Eighteenth-Century Enlightenment, scarcely reached them. . . . upon arrival to the Americas, Iberians did not form a settlers’ society as the English did in Northern America, Australia or New Zealand. Much to the contrary, they mingled. Initially, with the indigenous population. Subsequently, with the slaves brought from Africa. This gave rise to an acculturated society. In other words, Latin America would represent a fringe version of the Iberian fringe model. . . . Even accepting the limitations of Iberians as full members of the Western World, and adding to it the acculturation process that took place in the New World, Latin Americans still remain Westerners. They are, however, within its periphery."
In terms of "civilization-states," Europe + North America has functioned as a distinct (if by no means fully unified) geopolitical unit in a way that Europe + North America + Latin America has not. Obviously, this is most apparent in NATO's role during the Cold War through recent history. Certainly, the West is less unified than China, but it's less divided than the Muslim world, which is riven by Sunni vs Shi'ite and Persian vs Arab rivalries. The Trump era may mark the end of the West as a geopolitical unit, which is a shame. Japan is certainly allied with the West, but it's too historically distinct to be considered fully Western.
Alfredo Toro is making the exact point I was targetting at first., Latin America (and to a lesser extent Spain) is unique enough but still Western to the core (Christian, Roman, European). I recognized Huntington's map and that is what triggered my comment, your article is a fantastic piece but it suffers from the Anglo problem of trying to create a "Western Civilization-State" where there isn't one really. You are mixing cultural entities with geopolitical ones.
Japan + NATO form a cohesive geopolitical unit since the end of WW2 yet culturally you see that Japan, North America and Europe were pretty distinct. Even in Europe you have an incredibly stark cultural difference between North-Western Europe (the original EEC founders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community) and Southern Europeans yet both are considered "Western". Similarly there is a sharp cultural separation between the Catholic and Protestant countries which doesn't exist among Islamic countries. An Egyptian, Moroccan, Iraqi, Bosniak and Kosovar have far more in common than they do with their christian counterparts. Here only non-Arab speaking Shiias are different enough.
The West as a cultural unit (the basis of Huntigton's work and map) is more divided than both the Islamic, Confucian and Indian civilization-states. As geopolitical units I concede your point. But civilization-states are based more on culture than geopolitical arrangements and such stuff has been common historically.
These arguments are why I advanced that the West is unique in the sense that it is a continuum of Westphalian states which share cultural traits between neighbouts but are not nearly as unified as China, India or the Arabo-Islamic world is (non-Arab muslims are to the Islamic civilization what Latin America is to the western). This is why both Poland, France, Greece and the US are part of the larger West when none of these countries even overlaps in language, religion or culture.
There are certainly cultural differences between Southern and Northern Europe, as well as Europe and North America, but I don't think they're as vast as you suggest. For example, take a look at the Kinship Intensity Index map at https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/SchulzHenrichetalTheChurchIntensiveKinshipGlobaPsychologicalVariation2019.pdf -- it shows a quite stark difference between the West and "the rest." There are exceptions in pockets like the Balkans, but in general, the West has unusually low levels of kinship intensity (ie, interpersonal embeddedness in a clan or tribe) and a uniquely individualistic psychological profile. Poland, France, Germany, and the US may not share a language, but they do share broad values and traditions, which are rooted in a common civilizational history (Greece, Judea, Rome, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc).
Joining your thought I am familiar with the WEIRD brand of arguments for the common Christian argument, for the matter my favourite underrated French demographer/sociologist Emmanuel Todd already gives a nice classification of cultures per family type https://pseudoerasmus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/todd-systemes-familiaux-monde.jpg (sorry for the french). You can see that the West and Japan have a similar classification of family which gives a better argument than just the Church forbidding cousin marriage. You can see the West by the family type.
But the devil is in the details and they impact life much in the day to day. Just as a simple example, the more South you go in Spain (and Greece/Italy from friends childhoods) your society stops being dictated by guilt and it is closer to a shame based society. You don't do things because they are right and that is how God told you (Christian mentality) but you do them because what if an external actor discovers you and punishes you. One of the differentiators in the West is that guilt is a strong motor of social interactions and societal rules, while in Islamic and Sinic societies it is shame (what will the neighbours think). In Spain they have a name for this, la Picaresca.
Just like in the document you shared, only the inheritors of the Carolingian empire (and England) are truly Western, everything else is part of the gradient between West and the border civilizations. The differences are not vast but they are higher once again than what exists in the Islamic and Sinic civilizations.
Arab Muslims and Confucian-based countries are pretty homogoneous, put a Moroccan in Iraq, a Lybian in Syria and there would be practically no difference (aside from the language, Arabic dialects are tough). A Spaniard in Germany, or Swede in Italy feels the difference regardless of language. The last point is something any European student in Erasmus can tell you.
Right, there is always going to be a gradient between civilizations and cultures. Some countries are more classically Western than others. But would you not agree that a Spaniard is still culturally closer to an Englishman than a Moroccan? "Europe," like any concept, has fuzzy boundaries, but it still indicates a sociological, not just geographical, reality. As for homogeneity, certainly the Middle East is more homogeneous than Europe by virtue of Arab imperialism. But a Moroccan Berber is not interchangeable with an Iraqi Kurd.
The Japanese are still quite psychologically distinct from Westerners, despite sharing a similar family structure. Both Japan and Korea began copying WEIRD civil institutions in modern times (eg, polygynous marriage was banned during the Meiji Restoration). So while certain East Asian countries have adopted Western norms to aid their own development, these norms are not as deeply rooted, so there is still a profound cultural gulf between civilizations.
Once again, I agree with what you say but my only comment is you underestimate the homogeneity of the other civilizations and overestimate the one of the West.
Ofc a Spaniard is closer to an Englishman than to a Moroccan because of Christianity, but when you go a bit deeper he is still very foreign to the Anglo spirit.
As for the Islamic example I get your point, and you are right but unluckily you choose the 2 worst examples to compare because they are one of the few interchangeable non-Arabic ethnicities. I have Amazigh family and interacted much with Kurds in Germany and let me tell you, they are both mountain people rejecting the societies they live in, defending a strong tribal identity and pre-Arabic language as well as being discriminated against by the larger society (Arabized Amazighs in Morocco and Turks/Iraqis for the Kurds). If you took a Tamazight/Tashelhiyt and put him in between Kurds aside from the language it would be much easier than a Spaniard in Poland. The homogeneity of Islam also creates a homogeneity of those who are oppressed by it. Add to that than in Islamic countries you have 2 poles of identity, your tribe and your religion while in Europe your identity is usually tied to your nation/people at large.
As for the East Asians yeah, they are in their own world and I can’t speak for it as I am not familiar with the Confucian world.
You don't understand Trump. Look at what he does, not what he says. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
I appreciate that Trump uses bluster as a tactic, but what was the point in this most recent case? Canada is not a major source of fentanyl or illegal immigration into the US. In exchange for calling off the tariffs, Trump "won" a Canadian border security package that had already been announced, plus some additional measures that could have been attained through normal negotiation. Was that worth the cost of alienating an ally (and all of America's allies who are watching)? In the long run, is this going to make Canada and other allies want to increase or decrease their economic ties to the US? Will it make them more or less likely to support American foreign policy? The answer is not good for America in the long term, even if there are apparent short-term wins.
Actually there are serious problems with northern border security, particularly with bad actors coming across. Look to his last administration as regards his policies, successes, and failures. You’re always going to get the bravado. Nobody else would put up with the abuse that he’s taken. His personality may alienate a lot of people, but he gets things done. Canada is also a hotbed of antisemitism and leftist nonsense right now. Some of what Trump is doing is making Trudeau look bad intentionally to weaken the liberals up there, who are essentially anti-Trump and vocally so. I mean Trudeau resigned a few days after he met with Trump. Not a coincidence. I don’t defend Trump because I’m crazy about his style. I think he’s a net positive and what we need right now. But he’s taken on a Herculean task to fix what’s broken here and nobody else could do what he’s doing.
In 2024, about 1.5% of Border Patrol apprehensions were at the northern border. Sure, you can say that's 1.5% too many, but it's off base to lump Canada in with Mexico. I'm not here to defend Trudeau or Canada's problems (I've written about them at https://1000yearview.substack.com/p/the-limits-of-canadian-post-nationalism). But the Liberals were already expected to lose the next Canadian election. If anything, Trump's bullying helps them, since they can draw on renewed anti-American sentiment (the Conservatives in Canada tend to be more pro-American). See The Economist (https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2025/02/04/the-trump-tariff-saga-offers-canadas-liberals-a-lifeline): "in recent weeks the Liberals have shown a flicker of life, thanks in part to a politician even less popular in Canada than Mr Trudeau: Donald Trump." I'm not against everything Trump does, and as I write in this post, I appreciate "America First" if it means a less interventionist, more national interest-oriented policy. But it's in the national interest to have allies.
Absolutely we need allies. We have national interests they extend beyond our borders. But Trump and center right populism is the trend now. It’s rearranging the political landscape in front of our eyes. Thankfully. A lot of the stuff with Trump is flashbulb stuff. It’s junk food news. It doesn’t stick. Canada is not going to break ties with the U.S.A. over Trump’s provocations. Although I do get the impression that many Canadians prefer to think of themselves as more European in orientation. Canada is not in the same league as Mexico as a source of illegals or contraband, but let’s recognize that the Southern border numbers have been insane, numbering in the millions. A few dozen terrorists can still ruin your day.
Canada won't break ties with the US over Trump's provocations, but it will seek to trade more with other countries instead (see https://theconversation.com/trumps-trade-war-is-forcing-canada-to-revive-a-decades-old-plan-to-reduce-u-s-dependence-248433). If Trump's goal is to get other countries to buy more American goods, imposing (or even threatening) punitive tariffs will have the opposite effect. That's the problem with the "flashbulb stuff"; it does stick in that allies will seek to hedge their bets if they view the US as an unreliable partner (or not a partner at all).
You aren’t wrong, but the political headwinds are with Trump at the moment, so I think it will blow over. Canadians are suffering from some of the same domestic economic issues we are and they are looking to revitalize their economy on a more free market basis. They tend to like Trump. There is also a big dichotomy between the East and the West in Canada. The westerners tend to be much more laissez faire as regards economics.