invalidate the 'western' tag

Not sure if its possible post1900 but i except not so I post it here

What PoD would stop 'western country' to be synonymous to 'first world country' ?

Would much higher industralization of specially Africa and Middle East doing the early'ish colonization do it? Or would it need to start out industralization in the same period as it did in Europe and North America?
 
You'd basically need to hamper Europe a lot, as else you'll just see non-Euro/American First World countries be included in the "Western World." Compare e.g. Japan, South Korea, Australia or Taiwan. All of them "Eastern" geographically, but "Western" politically/economically in the sense you're talking about.
 
You'd basically need to hamper Europe a lot, as else you'll just see non-Euro/American First World countries be included in the "Western World." Compare e.g. Japan, South Korea, Australia or Taiwan. All of them "Eastern" geographically, but "Western" politically/economically in the sense you're talking about.

I would guess that most people in the West don't think of those places as Western in any meaningful sense. At most, they think of them as exceptions. Maybe this is more a European thing though, I don't know.
 
Is Western synonymous with globalisation? If we can make the two separate than I say that globalisation will start to be seen and used more and more as state sovereignty is broken down and populations start to be allowed greater cultural and political freedom. Perhaps the idea of 'western' being a thing will already have disappeared within 20 years or so.
 
Last edited:
Wait another 10 years, and the majority of people living first world lifestyles will be living in non-western societies.

I would guess that most people in the West don't think of those places as Western in any meaningful sense. At most, they think of them as exceptions. Maybe this is more a European thing though, I don't know.
Australia is always considered western, since its present cultural origins are from two small western European islands. Western can generally be defined as the part of the world which trace their cultural origins to that part of Europe which is traditionally of Catholic/Protestant religion. This means Poland and is western but Serbia arguably isn't, or why Argentina can be considered western but Japan definitely not.
 
Wait another 10 years, and the majority of people living first world lifestyles will be living in non-western societies.

Australia is always considered western, since its present cultural origins are from two small western European islands. Western can generally be defined as the part of the world which trace their cultural origins to that part of Europe which is traditionally of Catholic/Protestant religion. This means Poland and is western but Serbia arguably isn't, or why Argentina can be considered western but Japan definitely not.

I agree. Australia and indeed New Zealand are almost always deemed to be Western, so far as anyone thinks about them.
 
Theres actually people thinking about Australia and/or New Zealand? :p

Jokes aside, what i'm probably looking for is to disconnect western from the meaning of being inherently more civilized than say middle eastern or african.
 
Theres actually people thinking about Australia and/or New Zealand? :p

Jokes aside, what i'm probably looking for is to disconnect western from the meaning of being inherently more civilized than say middle eastern or african.

Western is a post war term, in terms of common use and popularity. Perhaps butterfly WW2 and the Cold War? There would be less need for an identity of the "Free" or non Communist first world nations.
 
What PoD would stop 'western country' to be synonymous to 'first world country' ?

It isn't and never has been since at least the 1920s with the industrialization of Japan. As others have noted, "Western" refers to nations that are heir to the religious/political/social/ethnic basis of Western European civilization no matter where in the world they are. Many nations in Latin America and some in southern Europe are clearly "western" but not not in the first world. "First World" countries are technologically sophisticated nations whose population enjoys a reasonably high standard of living and whose national wealth gives them stature in international commerce. This includes many Asian nations that are culturally not western. None of this refers to liberal democracy.
 
Last edited:
Like, how exactly is Japan more "western" than, say, China?

I wouldn't say either is "western", but in adopting the political structure of a western democracy (and before that of a western constitutional monarchy) and aligning itself with western imperialism in the attempted partition of China, Japan became in effect a "western" power in terms of its relationship to the rest of the world, while China still is not considred western.
 
1) One reason for the concept of Western is that Europe and its American offshoot were on the western end of Euroasia and the civilisations at the other end (Islamic, Indian, Oriental) could be easily labelled Eastern.

2) First World should not be synomous with Western because First World was a term was for NATO and its allies during the Cold War. The Second World was the Soviet Bloc and included Western Countries such as Poland, East Germany and Czechoslavakia. The Third World was the non aligned countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
 
I wouldn't say either is "western", but in adopting the political structure of a western democracy (and before that of a western constitutional monarchy) and aligning itself with western imperialism in the attempted partition of China, Japan became in effect a "western" power in terms of its relationship to the rest of the world, while China still is not considred western.

If anything, Japan is even less western than China. The social norms in Japan are even more hierarchical and group-oriented than those of China. The in/out distinction is also a good deal stronger in Japan. Even Japan's form of government, while having the trappings of a western democracy, is not at its content western (e.g. the much stronger bureaucracy, or the corporatist attitude of government in general).

As for its past imperialism, imperialist states are not necessarily western nor is it necessary for a western state to become imperialist.

These matter, because a society's view of itself and its own heritage matters on how it deals with others.
 
Top