What and who is "The West" ?

[asianobserve]

BTW, is Byzantium an offshoot of Rome, or is Rome an offshoot of Byzantium? In either case, what is Rome? Polytheistic Idolatrous Rome, or Christian Monotheistic Rome? Make up your mind first.

IN what context are you talking about, as a city or as an empire (granting you mean Byzantine Empire by Byzantium)? If you're talking about empires, you can say that Byzantium is an offshoot of Rome (granting we mean Roman Empire by Rome). But if you're referring to the Holy Roman Empire as "Rome" you cannot say that it is an offshoot of Byzantium (Byzantine Empire). The Holy Roman Empire is a revival of the Western Roman Empire and has all along been based in Rome.

 

[pmaitra]

IN what context are you talking about, as a city or as an empire (granting you mean Byzantine Empire by Byzantium)? If you're talking about empires, you can say that Byzantium is an offshoot of Rome (granting we mean Roman Empire by Rome). But if you're referring to the Holy Roman Empire as "Rome" you cannot say that it is an offshoot of Byzantium (Byzantine Empire). The Holy Roman Empire is a revival of the Western Roman Empire and has all along been based in Rome.

When you say 'Roman Empire,' you are being ambiguous. Which Roman Empire? There was one Roman Empire that used to worship idols of Venus, Mars, Ceres, et al., and then, there was another Roman Empire that had a distinct and contradictory religion, that shunned idolatry and espoused monotheism. Make up your mind. When you say 'Roman Empire,' I have no idea what you are talking about. In the context of Christianity, no Byzantium is not an offshoot of the Roman Empire; if that were true, Byzantium would have also worshipped Venus, Mars, Ceres, et al..

BTW, here is a Temple of Bacchus, and example of Roman religion, for you:

I am sure the Roman Popes would have strongly disapproved of this.

 

[pmaitra]

Here is a timeline of the Roman Empire in the Before Christ Era: http://chaos1.hypermart.net/fullsize/romrepfs.gif

This Empire is again divided into 3 main chronological periods. This Empire could have never given birth to a Christian Empire like Byzantium.

 

[pmaitra]

Also, check this out: http://chaos1.hypermart.net/fullsize/romempfs.gif

330 AD: Constantinopole founded at the former Byzantium.
331 AD: Constantine converts to Christianity.
This is when religious change in Rome begins, after Constantine's conversion.
361 AD: Julian orders restoration of Pagan Faith.

So, do you see why Byzantium was the first Christian Empire, and not Rome?

 

[asianobserve]

When you say 'Roman Empire,' you are being ambiguous. Which Roman Empire? There was one Roman Empire that used to worship idols of Venus, Mars, Ceres, et al., and then, there was another Roman Empire that had a distinct and contradictory religion, that shunned idolatry and espoused monotheism. Make up your mind. When you say 'Roman Empire,' I have no idea what you are talking about. In the context of Christianity, no Byzantium is not an offshoot of the Roman Empire; if that were true, Byzantium would have also worshipped Venus, Mars, Ceres, et al..

BTW, here is a Temple of Bacchus, and example of Roman religion, for you:

The classical Roman Empire
I am sure the Roman Popes would have strongly disapproved of this.

Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire are different empires. As I said earlier the Roman Empire is the empire that succeeded the Roman Republic. This started when Julius Caesar became an emperor for life (the Senators who were the most powerful class in the Roman Republic were against him). The Holy Roman Empire on the other hand can be traced to the coronation of Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope. This empire came out of the ashes of the Western administrative region of the classical Roman Empire and was based in Rome.

So if we use "Rome" as a term, we're referring to 2 "Romes," first is Rome as the center of the Roman Empire and the second Rome as the center of the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[asianobserve]

Don't say that Christianity was never a part of the classical Roman Empire. Christianity became a part of it towards the later part of its existence and was solidified when Roman Emperor Constantine I declared it as the imperial religion. Of course the Roman Empire for the most part (early part) of its existence embraced the Greek Gods as their own although they gave them Roman names.

 

[asianobserve]

Here is a timeline of the Roman Empire in the Before Christ Era: http://chaos1.hypermart.net/fullsize/romrepfs.gif

This Empire is again divided into 3 main chronological periods. This Empire could have never given birth to a Christian Empire like Byzantium.

Here's a list of the Roman Emperors. You will notice that Emperor Constantine I who declared Christianity as the Roman Empire's religion is not the last emperor, there were a lot more Roman emperors that followed him (in other words the Roman Empire continued to exist after Constantine I:

List of Roman emperors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[civfanatic]

Even you admit that Russia has more in common with the West.

Compared to Turkey, yes.

The perceived distance or separation of Russia from the "West" is a product or a confusion that resulted from the Cold War era. During the ideological divide divide between "West" (capitalist) and "East" (socialist/Communist) of the Cold War Russia got lumped with the latter (naturally as it was its center) and the meaning of the East got confused. The West and East divide of the Cold War has nothing to do with cultural or civilizational historical perspective but was centered on political and economic divide. That's why I said earlier in discussing "West" versus "East" we must distinguish from what perspective do we want the conversation to take off, civilizational or the Cold War perspective.

Please respond to my other points. Since you argue that Russia belongs to the 'West' because it follows a branch of Christianity, wouldn't this mean that Sub-Saharan Africans are also Westerners, if we follow your logic? So are Sub-Saharan Africans Westerners or not? And how about Filipinos, South Koreans, and Malayalis of India? All "Westerners"?

No in here is talking about the Cold War; we are talking about the historical civilization perspective. Do you know what the Western Europeans themselves thought about Russia prior to the 20th century? You should read what they wrote. To summarize, they regarded them as 'barbaric Asiatics'.

We were talking about Russia in the context of East and West and he is arguing that Russia is part of the East.

Um no, I never argued that Russia is part of the 'East'. Again, read what I wrote.

The 'East' as a collective civilizational entity does not exist. The 'West' can be described as a single civilization, the 'East' cannot. You would do well to shed the orientalist approach.

 

[pmaitra]

Here's a list of the Roman Emperors. You will notice that Emperor Constantine I who declared Christianity as the Roman Empire's religion is not the last emperor, there were a lot more Roman emperors that followed him (in other words the Roman Empire continued to exist after Constantine I:

List of Roman emperors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, the pagan Roman Empire ceased to exist, and a new, albeit weaker Roman Empire emerged, post Constantine. After much attenuation, a new Holy Roman Empire emerged, with effort from present day Germany, and elsewhere.

'Continued' isn't the right word. Continuation happens when something carries on, not when something is replaced with another contradictory thing.

 

[pmaitra]

AsianObserve, I recommend you travel the Trans-Siberian Route, from Europe to Asia, and Observe.

You'll know, what is West and what is East - or perhaps, be more dazzled.

 

[asianobserve]

Please respond to my other points. Since you argue that Russia belongs to the 'West' because it follows a branch of Christianity, wouldn't this mean that Sub-Saharan Africans are also Westerners, if we follow your logic? So are Sub-Saharan Africans Westerners or not? And how about Filipinos, South Koreans, and Malayalis of India? All "Westerners"?

Of course I did not mean to make Christianity as the all-encompassing characterstics of the Western World. I injected that in the context of Turkey and Russia.

No in here is talking about the Cold War; we are talking about the historical civilization perspective. Do you know what the Western Europeans themselves thought about Russia prior to the 20th century? You should read what they wrote. To summarize, they regarded them as 'barbaric Asiatics'.

Never mind what the Western Europeans once said about their kins in Russia. They were obviously motivated by contempt without even considering their shared history.

Um no, I never argued that Russia is part of the 'East'. Again, read what I wrote.

Then what are we arguing about? So its settled then, Russia is part of the Western World.

The 'East' as a collective civilizational entity does not exist. The 'West' can be described as a single civilization, the 'East' cannot. You would do well to shed the orientalist approach.

I'm sorry. We should differentiate the Indus Valley civilization from the Yellow and Yangtze civilizations and the Khmers and the Mongols, etc. But then we will overlook something in the process, that all these civilizations in Asia have somethings that connect them or cross-influenced them from religion to language (at least bits and parts and pieces) etc., at least before these countries were touched by Western colonialism.

BTW, I think some Russians may feel the same way as you in being lumped with the rest of Europe into the "Western World" amalgamation. After all they also have their own proud history.

 

[asianobserve]

AsianObserve, I recommend you travel the Trans-Siberian Route, from Europe to Asia, and Observe.

You'll know, what is West and what is East - or perhaps, be more dazzled.

Unfortunately, I don't have that luxury. But if you want to emphasize your "Toilet Seat Anthropology" then I'm sorry, I will not buy it.

 

[pmaitra]

Unfortunately, I don't have that luxury. But if you want to emphasize your "Toilet Seat Anthropology" then I'm sorry, I will not buy it.

There are videos on YouTube. I have also posted one series here on DFI. Check them out.

 

[pmaitra]

Then what are we arguing about? So its settled then, Russia is part of the Western World.

AsianObserve's world of reasoning involves a singular bi-state capacitor. It either has charge, or is devoid of charge.

 

[asianobserve]

(self-deleted: irrelevant)

 

[Singh]

 

[panduranghari]

^^ that is really good.

 

[civfanatic]

Of course I did not mean to make Christianity as the all-encompassing characterstics of the Western World. I injected that in the context of Turkey and Russia.

So you agree that Russia cannot be regarded as part of the 'West' simply because they follow a branch of Christianity? Good.

Then what are we arguing about? So its settled then, Russia is part of the Western World.

The same 'Western world' that also includes Sub-Saharan Africa?

I don't know why you are so intent on dividing the world between the 'East' and 'West', as if all human societies and civilizations fall into one of these two categories.

I'm sorry. We should differentiate the Indus Valley civilization from the Yellow and Yangtze civilizations and the Khmers and the Mongols, etc. But then we will overlook something in the process, that all these civilizations in Asia have somethings that connect them or cross-influenced them from religion to language (at least bits and parts and pieces) etc., at least before these countries were touched by Western colonialism.

What exactly "connects" Japan and Egypt? Or Yemen and Mongolia? Or Iran and Vietnam? These are all extremely diverse societies that belong to unique, distinct civilizations, and several of these societies actually have more in common with the 'West' than with other societies of the 'East'. But according to the brilliantly idiotic idea of the 'Eastern world' they all have the same 'essence' (whatever the hell that is) and belong to one huge collective 'other' that serves as a convenient foil for the 'West'.

Once again, you would do well to shed the orientalist approach. Its strange how an 'asianobserver' looks at his own continent from an exclusively Western (European) lens.

 

[civfanatic]

Wish the map included Iran, Egypt, and India.

 

[asianobserve]

The same 'Western world' that also includes Sub-Saharan Africa?

I thought you already accepted my clarification?

I don't know why you are so intent on dividing the world between the 'East' and 'West', as if all human societies and civilizations fall into one of these two categories.

Then why call ourselves Asians if there's no point in an amalgamation anyway or them as Europeans or Middle Eastern? This amalgamation of related civilizations or cultures cut both ways, it can be a tool for putting down a large swath of people into a group so that they can be distinguished as sub par with another amalgamated people in terms of culture or civilization (what you are alluding to in your insistence of going against the "East" and "West" thing, which you consider as a historical conspiracy by the West to put us down) or it could be a rallying cry for an amalgamated people, who otherwise would be at each other's throat for their petty civilizational differences without looking at their broader shared legacy to work together more closely. In any case, the globalisation of culture is erasing the civilizational differences and fusing us all into a globalised civilization. This is a source of optimism for me for the future (there are of course reactionaries who are waging a violent global fight to stop this phenomenon).


[/QUOTE]What exactly "connects" Japan and Egypt? Or Yemen and Mongolia? Or Iran and Vietnam? These are all extremely diverse societies that belong to unique, distinct civilizations, and several of these societies actually have more in common with the 'West' than with other societies of the 'East'. But according to the brilliantly idiotic idea of the 'Eastern world' they all have the same 'essence' (whatever the hell that is) and belong to one huge collective 'other' that serves as a convenient foil for the 'West'.[/QUOTE]

In other words there's really a discernable cultural or civilizational distinction between Asians and Middle Easterns. This is logical since the relatively close proximity between people in several continents has resulted in the closer comingling of their cultural development. It would be absured to say that pre-Western expansion, the Europeans are closely related with the Chinese, etc...

Once again, you would do well to shed the orientalist approach. Its strange how an 'asianobserver' looks at his own continent from an exclusively Western (European) lens.

I get the drift...