Is "Latin America" part of the "west"?

[ag]

Latin America is big ))

[ag]

I'd agree with Chile, Argentina and Uruguay being set aside from the rest of Latin America.

For me, the 'West' is more or less rich christianity-leading nations, preferably with a history of liberal democracy. This includes New Zeraland, Australia, the USA, Canada, Western Europe, Greece, Scandinavia, maybe a couple of Eastern European Countries, maybe the Southern Cone, and *possibly* South Africa and Israel.

Argentina WAS rich, but isn't anymore. Its GDP per capita is pretty much equal to that of Mexico (a bit smaller without PPP adjustment, probably a tad higher w/ PPP adjustment, but, basically, statistically indistinguishable). Same is actually true of Uruguay - it's not any different from Mexico wealthwise. Even Chile isn't that much richer. Argentina has very little to boast about as far as liberal democracy is concerned - its democracy is very intermittent and rarely liberal. Uruguay and Chile are a bit better in this respect, but they both did have major interruptions, as we all know. Christianity is dominant throughout the continent. So, what makes Argentina any different from, say, Mexico - except for the skin color of the average guy on the street, of course?

BTW, OECD - the economic club of rich nations - includes only 2 Latin American countries: Mexico (joined in 1994) and Chile (joined in 2010)

[ag]

So, just to make clear about wealth, etc. Here are the per capita GDP numbers for LatAm countries, (these things are a bit artificial and they vary a bit, depending on who computes them, but IMF website is as good as any source):

Uruguay $12,129 (US, for comparison, $47,132)
Chile $11,587
Brazil $10,471
Venezuela $9,773
Mexico $9,243
Argentina $8,663
Panama $7,712
Costa Rica $7,350
Colombia $6,220
Peru $5,196
Dominican Republic $5,152
Ecuador $4,295
El Salvador $3,717
Guatemala $2,839
Paraguay $2,681
Bolivia $2,042
Honduras $2,014
Nicaragua $1,096
Haiti (not quite LatAm, but, for comparison): $659

w/ PPP adjustment, to get rid of exchange rate effects , the numbers are (same source):

Argentina $15,603 (US, for comparison is $47,132)
Chile $14.982
Uruguay $14,341
Mexico $14,266
Panama $12,398
Venezuela $11,889
Brazil $11,589
Costa Rica $10,731
Colombia $9,445
Peru $9,281
Dominican Republic $8,648
Ecuador $7,952
El Salvador $7,442
Paraguay $4,915
Guatemala $4,871
Bolivia $4,584
Honduras $4,405
Nicaragua $2,970
Haiti $1,122

[ag]

So, what makes Argentina any different from, say, Mexico - except for the skin color of the average guy on the street, of course?

That does matter. A large part of what makes the West the West is its whiteness.

Well, whiteness is also not exactly a clear construct. Russians, for instance, have trouble distinguishing between Mediterrainean folk (like Italians or Greeks) and the Zulus - they are all "black". Of course, that doesn't make Russians Western ))

[ag]

     I would consider it to be part of the west. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't, other than for the wholly arbitrary reason of the average skin tone of the people living there.

Well, if they don't consider themselves Westerners, which should count for something. I'm not sure if anyone has asked, but I'm sure the results would be interesting.

Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay are clearly part of the West. All have more in common culturally with Spain or (at least for Argentina and Uruguay) Italy than they have with, say, Bolivia or Peru. With the rest, it varies.

Argentina and Uruguay, indeed, have fewer links w/ neighbours, at least as far as Buenos Aires is concerned (it would be a whole different ballgame in Tucuman or Jujuy). Chile is historically very closely linked w/ Peru. I fail to see how Mexico's ties w/ Europe are any weaker, though (except for lack of non-Spanish migration) - hey, Mexico fought its own post-independence wars w/ Spain and France (and, actually, the Brits also made a cameo appearance). And, clearly, there are very strong ties w/ that other honorary member of the West, the US, to be considered )) In fact, Mexico is, probably, one of the most "americanized" nation in the world, if cultural links are taken into consideration.

Now, in terms of self-perception, this might be interesting )) But then, whose self-perception we take within each country? For they are all non-homogenous. Buenos Aires is likely to claim itself "Western", but so would Nuevo Leon or Guanajuato (though for different reasons). Then, again, Chiapas and Jujuy might find a lot in common )

[ag]

So, what makes Argentina any different from, say, Mexico - except for the skin color of the average guy on the street, of course?

Its history? Of course - as has been said already - skin colour is a major part of that. It's basically another mid/late 19th century white settler colony, though less officially dependent on imperial powers than most at the time and less successful in the long run afterwards. Mexico is something else. Gross generalisation and oversimplification, granted.

The thing is: Argentinians make themselves appear less Latin American then they are, but they are VERY Latin American. The reason that Argentina has been converging w/ the rest of the region, is that it's not that much different. Argentina is no more Western than any other "white" Latin American country, such as, say, Russia ))))))

Of course, I am joking here a bit, but, the truth is, unless the skin color is the determinant feature of being part of the West, it is hard to make the case that Argentina is any closer to it than Mexico or Brazil.  The fundamental lack of liberalism in Argentinian polity is, indeed, making Russia the closest comparison.

[ag]

Argentina and Uruguay are white settler societies. If they aren't western, then neither are the United States and Australia. The former at least is far less white, and in all the aforementioned countries, the indigenous are a powerless, marginalized, tiny minority. That's much less the case in most of Latin America. Most of Latin America outside of the Southern Cone has Hispanic Cities and a largely indigenous countryside. To return to the Mexico example some have brought up, Mexico City and the resort cities on the coast are clearly culturally Western, but the rest of the country, not so much.

The fundamental lack of liberalism in Argentinian polity is, indeed, making Russia the closest comparison.

Spain and Portugal were at least as lacking in liberalism until the 1970s, and almost everyone agrees that they are part of the West.

So, I guess, for you "westernness" is sinonymous w/ "whitness". But then, there is a very simple question for you: is Russia "Western"? If Argentina is, surely so is Russia. Or is it not just "whiteness", but also Catholicism/Protestantism? But, then, is Greece Western?

[ag]

I guess, we should develop criteria, for what is that misterious West?

When I lived in Spain it struck me, that Spaniards, especially of a certain generation would say things like "in Europe they...." do so and so. If one wondered about some maddening local custom or occurence, people would say: "that's because we aren't in Europe." For me, Spain was archetypically European, but it wasn't for the Spanish. They had learnt that they are not part of Europe proper, not part of the West. It would seem, that the younger generation is less prone to this - they are European, and, henceforth, Western.

For me, "the West" is not an immutable list of countries. Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal, at least post-WWII, were not Western - nor was Husak's Czechoslovakia, for that matter. Nevertheless, today all three would be unquestionably Western. Arguably, in the 19th century Russia was a part of that intangible West, though it is in no way part of it today. 200 years ago a certain unity was maintained through dynastic linkages and nasty alliances. Today, the key element of that identification  is the liberal democracy, and membership in the "Western" trading alliances and institutions, such as NATO, EU, etc. This is the "civilized world", the rest being considered "savage".

The "core" West today is the EU+EFTA+NATO+Australia/NZ-Turkey. These countries are, unquestionably, part of a certain alliance of ideology and trust. Turkey, despite its NATO membership is not fully accepted there, so it is part of the outer fringe, which, probably, also includes such disparate countries as the Western Balkans, which are applying for EU membership; Israel, which thinks of itself as Western and which is linked to the West in multiple ways; Japan, and, to some extent, South Korea and Taiwan, which are not merely closely allied to the West politically, but also have developed into boisterous wealthy democracies (HK and Singapore do not make it on the last count, though are still somewhat "Western-affiliated" in public perception).

Parts of Latin America are, clearly, also part of this fringe. Institutionally, the two countries most closely linked to the West, I would think, would be Chile and Mexico. Both are, at present, liberal democracies with extraordinary trading links w/ the US. OECD membership is quite logical here. Mexico, for one, is culturally extremely US-dependent. NAFTA is a logical Western alliance. Still, both countries are quite fringy - it wouldn't take much for their integration w/ the West to be shattered.

Argentina/Uruguay/Brazil are much less linked to the West, they are much more autonomous. In Argentina liberal democracy never took root. It has spent the entire 20th century working hard on abandoning the Western concert. It has been relatively impoverished (having started the century among the 15 richest nations in the world, it is nowhere near now). For a confirmation, let's recall that Western nations don't fight wars between themselves any more, but we are less than 30 years away from a certain South Atlantic misadventure ))  Uruguay is better in most respects, but it can't be really considered separately from Argentina. Brazil, on theo ther hand, is a world onto its own, an independent center of power - like, say, India, not really closely integrated w/ anyone or anything. Most of the rest of the Latin America is too poor or too isolated or too illiberal to be a serious contender for being inside the most distant Western fringe.

[ag]

Argentina, ...and Uruguay I don't even need to explain. They're obviously western in almost every sense of the word. If you count them out because they've had dictatorships or because they used to have a few mestizos, you'd have to count out Italy, Spain and Portugal from the western world.

Except, every sense that matters ) They are not part of any Western alliance or organization, they are not closely linked to the West by trade, Argentina is not in any sense a liberal democracy (and hasn't really ever been one). Their only claim to being Western is the skin color of (most) of their inhabitants. But on that count Russia should be considered part of the West - and I haven't seen anyone here who does believe that.

The superficial ancestral Westernness of the Argentinians, etc., is just that - a long-decayed heritage. The polity these Italians/Germans/Slavs created in the New World has developed in very exotic ways, under very little Western influence.

[ag]

Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and arguably Brazil are part of the "west". Parts of Mexico are certainly western culturally. Northern Mexico is very white, has a culture of ranching and has always been more prosperous that the rest of the nation. It's also been influenced by American culture significantly. Mexico City has a large amount of influenced from European emigrants and American expats. At any given time there will be hundreds of thousands of Americans there. It's also very westernized. Then there's Cancun, Cabo San Lucas and other resort towns. Areas of Mexico that are definitely not western: Oaxaca, Tabasco, Chiapas, the slums surrounding Mexico City and Veracruz. The rest of Mexico is debatable.

Well, why not then remember, say Jujuy? How Western is that? Buenos Aires is not all of Argentina, you know. Or, for that matter, there are quite exotic places in Andalucia )) And, honestly, can one seriously view UT or OK as parts of the same concert of nations as New York and (old) Amsterdam?

[ag]

Why do you view the West as such of a political term? To me it has always been more of a cultural and economic term? After all the West has had its bouts of authoritarianism and has had big lapses in its liberal democratic tradition. I think your definition is a little too narrow and focused on diplomacy and politics. Mine might be too broad.

Well, this is a political forum. And the notion of political West makes a lot of sense to me. Cultural West? I don't know what it means. In any case, culturally, Russia is the most anti-Western country I ever lived in, the white skin and blond hair notwithstanding.

[ag]

The bulk of Eastern Europe isn't any richer than Lat Am and its institutions are equally fragile. Lithuania's PPP GDP per capita is barely higher than Argentina's, Latvia's is roughly equal to that of Mexico and Uruguay, Bulgaria is like Venezuela, Romania is like Brazil. All 4 are EU members, so, arguably, at least somewhat "Western". Botswana may be a bit of a quirk of statistics: the PPP adjustment there is huge: its nominal GDP is closer to Colombia and Suriname, than it is to Mexico or Argentina (though Botswana's number still beats Bulgaria). In nominal terms, the richest Lat. Am. countries (Uruguay and Chile) have higher GDP per capita than Poland.  In fact, until fairly recently many Lat Am countries were wealthier than Spain or Portugal - it's only in the last 20 years that the migration flows have reversed.

Likewise, arguably, the history of democratic institutions in much of Latin America is roughly as long and robust as that in Eastern/Central Europe, and  the Southern Europe doesn't have that much of an advantage there either. 

Finally, as for monetary ties to Europe - why's that a criterion? Some Latin American countries have extremely strong ties (including financial) to the US - unless you consider US not to be part of the West either, why exactly should one bother about Europe per se here? For that matter, if the "monetary ties" to Europe were to be determinative, much of Africa would have done extremely well (all those quasi-French currencies )) ).

[ag]

Argentina and Uruguay are white settler societies. If they aren't western, then neither are the United States and Australia. The former at least is far less white, and in all the aforementioned countries, the indigenous are a powerless, marginalized, tiny minority. That's much less the case in most of Latin America. Most of Latin America outside of the Southern Cone has Hispanic Cities and a largely indigenous countryside. To return to the Mexico example some have brought up, Mexico City and the resort cities on the coast are clearly culturally Western, but the rest of the country, not so much.

The fundamental lack of liberalism in Argentinian polity is, indeed, making Russia the closest comparison.

Spain and Portugal were at least as lacking in liberalism until the 1970s, and almost everyone agrees that they are part of the West.

So, I guess, for you "westernness" is sinonymous w/ "whitness". But then, there is a very simple question for you: is Russia "Western"? If Argentina is, surely so is Russia. Or is it not just "whiteness", but also Catholicism/Protestantism? But, then, is Greece Western?

I might be splitting hairs, but there is a difference in that Argentina is Catholic and Russia Orthodox.

Greece is vehemently Orthodox. So are 3 more EU members (Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania). And all four have many fewer blonds than the Russians (in fact, Russians would consider them borderline "black"). In any case, should I take your point that to be "Western" one must be both white and Catholic/Protestant (excluding those four)? But, then, Ukrainians are not only blond, but, at least in the West, a lot of them ARE Catholic (most of them in a fe provinces). Perhaps, you will also insist on the Latin rite (Catholic Ukrainians are, mostly, Uniate)?

[ag]

Argentina and Uruguay are white settler societies. If they aren't western, then neither are the United States and Australia. The former at least is far less white, and in all the aforementioned countries, the indigenous are a powerless, marginalized, tiny minority. That's much less the case in most of Latin America. Most of Latin America outside of the Southern Cone has Hispanic Cities and a largely indigenous countryside. To return to the Mexico example some have brought up, Mexico City and the resort cities on the coast are clearly culturally Western, but the rest of the country, not so much.

The fundamental lack of liberalism in Argentinian polity is, indeed, making Russia the closest comparison.

Spain and Portugal were at least as lacking in liberalism until the 1970s, and almost everyone agrees that they are part of the West.

So, I guess, for you "westernness" is sinonymous w/ "whitness". But then, there is a very simple question for you: is Russia "Western"? If Argentina is, surely so is Russia. Or is it not just "whiteness", but also Catholicism/Protestantism? But, then, is Greece Western?

I might be splitting hairs, but there is a difference in that Argentina is Catholic and Russia Orthodox.

Greece is vehemently Orthodox. So are 3 more EU members (Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania). And all four have many fewer blonds than the Russians (in fact, Russians would consider them borderline "black"). In any case, should I take your point that to be "Western" one must be both white and Catholic/Protestant (excluding those four)? But, then, Ukrainians are not only blond, but, at least in the West, a lot of them ARE Catholic (most of them in a fe provinces). Perhaps, you will also insist on the Latin rite (Catholic Ukrainians are, mostly, Uniate)?

I'm not arguing that Orthodoxy precludes Westernness, I'm simply saying that such an argument might be made. Certainly whiteness is necessary, though. It is the foundation of the West.

Hm. Still?

Ok, let's define "white". For instance, from the Russian standpoint, most Mediterranens (Greeks, Italians, etc.) are about as white as the Zulus )) Are Jews white? Are the Irish? What IS "white"?

[ag]

The bulk of Eastern Europe isn't any richer than Lat Am and its institutions are equally fragile. Lithuania's PPP GDP per capita is barely higher than Argentina's, Latvia's is roughly equal to that of Mexico and Uruguay, Bulgaria is like Venezuela, Romania is like Brazil. All 4 are EU members, so, arguably, at least somewhat "Western". Botswana may be a bit of a quirk of statistics: the PPP adjustment there is huge: its nominal GDP is closer to Colombia and Suriname, than it is to Mexico or Argentina (though Botswana's number still beats Bulgaria). In nominal terms, the richest Lat. Am. countries (Uruguay and Chile) have higher GDP per capita than Poland.  In fact, until fairly recently many Lat Am countries were wealthier than Spain or Portugal - it's only in the last 20 years that the migration flows have reversed.

Likewise, arguably, the history of democratic institutions in much of Latin America is roughly as long and robust as that in Eastern/Central Europe, and  the Southern Europe doesn't have that much of an advantage there either.  

Finally, as for monetary ties to Europe - why's that a criterion? Some Latin American countries have extremely strong ties (including financial) to the US - unless you consider US not to be part of the West either, why exactly should one bother about Europe per se here? For that matter, if the "monetary ties" to Europe were to be determinative, much of Africa would have done extremely well (all those quasi-French currencies )) ).

I always use PPP conversions when doing international wealth comparisons. The nominal GDP per capita (at least as tabulated on wiki) is so sensitive to fluctuations that it's hardly a usable metric, except in proximal places where the disparity is striking, like the US-Mexico, or France-Algeria.

And about the EU: Christopher Hitchens actually wrote someplace that (at the time) backward countries like Spain and Portugal were admitted to the Common Market in order to Europeanize them politically, irrespective of any monetary benefit to the member states, not that either were anything other than western even during their dictatorships. In that sense, the same impetus is true for EU expansion into eastern nations like Poland and the Czech Republic, not that they were anything less than western oriented in their histories, either.

I think instability of domestic institutions goes farther than simply the revolving-door style ministries of Italy. I mean situations where the civil institutions, civil infrastructure, or important industries like banks come to a complete stop, or even vanish, as was once common in Latin America and other stereotypical "Third World" countries (I regard Nigeria as a prototype of this).

And monetary ties to Europe: I thought, as an economist you would have drawn a distinction between being a member of a financial decision-making body (or, really, club) consisting of near-equals, like the old gold standard, or the G8**, and being a colonialist dependency subject to
unpayable IMF loans and western politicians like subsaharan Africa.

**unlike the modern G20

1. Fine. But even under PPP several Lat Am economies have GDP numbers similar or above to those of several EU members.

2. Whatever Nigeria has to do w/ it, but the leading Lat Am economies have a lot more in common institutionally w/ Europe than they have w/ Nigeria.

3. I still have now clue about monetary ties? Is US Western or not? Which loans are unpayable? No clue, honest to god ))

[ag]

2. I cite Nigeria as the prototype "Third World" nation: Decayed to nonexistent infrastructure, a peasantry with widespread low-human development, importance of the police/military as a political force, single-industry economy, etc.. And in this light, the national issues of Latin American countries more strongly resembles the national issues of Nigeria than it does any western country.

3. Debts borrowed against and serviced in a foreign currency are absolutely unpayable. Look at the way Ecuador and Argentina -- and Iceland -- defaulted on their dollar/euro debts earlier this decade.  But these countries have no choice other than borrowing from the IMF or from European banks: These national governments do not have the option of borrowing from themselves like Japan, printing up money like the US (they'd end up like Zimbabwe in months), or even borrowing from each other, since they need the capital just as much as their neighbors.

Even private banks in Mexico and Argentina are ultimately capitalized from Spain (which is ultimately backed by Germany), in the way that banks in Nigeria are capitalized from South Africa (which gets its debts from the UK).

Nigeria has about as much in common w/ Argentina as it has w/ the US. Taking Nigeria as an "archetype" here could, perhaps, serve to argue that most of Lat Am is not at all like it, but not otherwise ))

Iceland is "Third World"? What about Norway then?

BTW, Mexico has nearly USD$100 bln in reserves and has just placed a 100-year bond at a quite low interest. Clearly, the markets don't think those debts unpayable ))

I don't quite follow your argument about, say, Mexican banks. Yes, some them belong to the Spaniards (though Banamex belongs to the Citibank, there is a sizable Canadian presence by Scotiabank Inverlat, HSBC has gotten the old Bital; Banorte - one of the largeish banks, especially after its forthcoming merger w/ Ixe - is Mexican-owned; the only major Spanish-owned banks I can immediately think of are Bancomer, which belongs to BBVA and Santander, which belongs to Santander Central Hispano).  But Argentina's example shows, if anything, that if sh**t happens, local subsidiaries will be cut loose by their mother banks. I don't really expect BBVA to rescue Bancomer if there is a big crisis. BTW, no need to speak of "private banks" - the sector has been overwhelmingly private for quite some years now.

[ag]

Argentina and Uruguay are white settler societies. If they aren't western, then neither are the United States and Australia. The former at least is far less white, and in all the aforementioned countries, the indigenous are a powerless, marginalized, tiny minority. That's much less the case in most of Latin America. Most of Latin America outside of the Southern Cone has Hispanic Cities and a largely indigenous countryside. To return to the Mexico example some have brought up, Mexico City and the resort cities on the coast are clearly culturally Western, but the rest of the country, not so much.

The fundamental lack of liberalism in Argentinian polity is, indeed, making Russia the closest comparison.

Spain and Portugal were at least as lacking in liberalism until the 1970s, and almost everyone agrees that they are part of the West.

So, I guess, for you "westernness" is sinonymous w/ "whitness". But then, there is a very simple question for you: is Russia "Western"? If Argentina is, surely so is Russia. Or is it not just "whiteness", but also Catholicism/Protestantism? But, then, is Greece Western?

I might be splitting hairs, but there is a difference in that Argentina is Catholic and Russia Orthodox.

Greece is vehemently Orthodox. So are 3 more EU members (Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania). And all four have many fewer blonds than the Russians (in fact, Russians would consider them borderline "black"). In any case, should I take your point that to be "Western" one must be both white and Catholic/Protestant (excluding those four)? But, then, Ukrainians are not only blond, but, at least in the West, a lot of them ARE Catholic (most of them in a fe provinces). Perhaps, you will also insist on the Latin rite (Catholic Ukrainians are, mostly, Uniate)?

I'm not arguing that Orthodoxy precludes Westernness, I'm simply saying that such an argument might be made. Certainly whiteness is necessary, though. It is the foundation of the West.

Hm. Still?

Ok, let's define "white". For instance, from the Russian standpoint, most Mediterranens (Greeks, Italians, etc.) are about as white as the Zulus )) Are Jews white? Are the Irish? What IS "white"?

Ancestry is a reasonable test of whiteness, I would think; those of predominantly European ancestry are white. Obviously Jews are a bit problematic in this paradigm (to the best of my knowledge, Jews of European ancestry would thereby be counted as white and Jews of non-European ancestry not), but they are not predominant in any of the areas in question.

Where do we draw the ancestry line? There is a long-standing ruling by an Australian court saying that Scottish Gaelic is not a European language. in light of this, are the Scots "white"? Are the Neapolitans white?