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

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Seriously question. I mean what do we mean by 'the west' exactly? I want definitions.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From my understanding of the term, probably not.

The West used to refer to the non-communist developed countries of the world and included Western Europe, Canada, Japan and the US essentially. The Communist countries were the East. The developing, non-communist countries were labeled the third world.


Several countries may be either Western or on the fence between third world and western based on how "developed" they are and what standards are used to determine that. 

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes, and I include Quebec as part of Latin America.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Depends on how you define "west".  Pretty much any definition not based on economic levels would include Latin America.  One indicator that a country is Western is that the primary native language(s) of the country has been written by its users using the Latin alphabet for a couple of centuries,  (Thus for example, Romania and Turkey aren't really Western, tho they have been Westernizing for many decades now.)

Yes, and I include Quebec as part of Latin America.

Not unless you're being extremely pedantic, and if you want to be that, call it Ibero-America instead of Latin America.

[Verily]

Yes.

I consider "The West" to a be a socio-cultural institution, bound up in European history, Catholic and Protestant Christianity, etc. It includes Western and Central Europe and all of the Americas, as well as Australia and New Zealand. It does not include, however, other wealthy and powerful countries unconnected to that history, such as Japan and Korea.

This is in contrast to "The First World" or similar terms based more on economics and politics, which would include places like Japan and Korea (and Taiwan, Singapore, etc.) but exclude, say, Bolivia or Guyana or Nicaragua (although Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil have at least an argument to be included these days).

[Beet]

Definitely not. Forget formalistic definitions, look at your gut. Look at history. Look at economics. Look at politics. Look at the patterns of exploitation. Look at institutions. Obviously 'The West' to be the US, Canada, Western Europe and Australia.

[patrick1]

No, I would consider it part of the "Global South".

[ag]

Latin America is big ))

[phk]

Yes and No.

[dead0man]

Yes, for the reasons given by Verily and Ernest.

[Hatman 🍁]

Depends on how you define "west".  Pretty much any definition not based on economic levels would include Latin America.  One indicator that a country is Western is that the primary native language(s) of the country has been written by its users using the Latin alphabet for a couple of centuries,  (Thus for example, Romania and Turkey aren't really Western, tho they have been Westernizing for many decades now.)

Yes, and I include Quebec as part of Latin America.

Not unless you're being extremely pedantic, and if you want to be that, call it Ibero-America instead of Latin America.

Ibero entails from Iberia. So, I am confused as French comes from France, not Iberia.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Latin America is big ))

The correct answer, yes.

[Gustaf]

Going with AG's point, a country like Venezuela or Honduras obviously isn't Western at all. I'd say modern day Chile could count though.

A Western nation, to my mind, is one which is politically stable, economically free and basically democratic, especially with respect to human rights. I know predictable hack jokes will then follow.

Traditionally, those countries were mostly Western Europe and North America, hence why we use Western to describe them. Japan obviously belongs on the list as well though. I'd probably include countries like South Korea and Estonia as well though and probably some of the Latin American ones.

[Silent Hunter]

I wouldn't call anywhere south of the Mexican border "The West".

[Edu]

Argentina, Chile and Uruguay have far more in common with the US and western Europe than with Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia.

Thanks to colonization first and massive inmigration from Europe second, There is not much difference culturally between these 3 countries and what is usually considered the west.

Even politically the similarities abound, after all the Argentina constitution was based on the US constitution (some would say it's almost like a carbon copy of it ). Each of the 3 countries is free and democratic as far as i know. I would also add Brazil.

It obviously depends on the definition one has of "The West". I always considered Latin America to be a part of the west geographically, culturally and politically.

Now if we are talking about economics i would make a division between 1st and 3rd world not between West, East or whatever.

[Insula Dei]

I always understand the 'West' as the parts of the world that are pre-dominantly european in culture and ethnicity and are highly developed. Based on that definition I'd say Latin America is a bit of a stretch but probably still a part of the 'West'. Japan, however, most certainly does not.

[Хahar 🤔]

Obviously certain parts are more Western than others. Argentina and Chile remind me of Spain and Portugal in that they both had autocratic governments in the not-so-distant past. Certainly those two are part of the West.

Traditionally, those countries were mostly Western Europe and North America, hence why we use Western to describe them. Japan obviously belongs on the list as well though. I'd probably include countries like South Korea and Estonia as well though and probably some of the Latin American ones.

Japan's certainly in the First World, but it's culturally different to the extent that I wouldn't call it part of the West.

[Hash]

I wouldn't call anywhere south of the Mexican border "The West".

That's ridiculous.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, in many ways Chile, Uruguay and Argentina are more like Canada or Australia than the rest of the continent. Certainly if you look at their development before the twentieth century.

[Platypus]

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.

[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)

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

[Platypus]

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)

For me, the difference with Argentina, besides the huge Italian influence (and so, in a roundabout way that isn't shared so much with Chile, skin tone), was that Argentinians (and Uruguayos and particularly Chileans) consider themselves to be westerners. Buenos Aires had all the hautiness of Paris; Santiago was more American than Nashville. The southern cone also have more sporting links with the rest of the west, there is a greater history of interaction with non-Iberian European nations (I think, anyway), and the terrain is more Europeany.

Plus Bariloche.

[Stranger in a strange land]

     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.