Westernizing

[Michael]

I was thinking about this concept of "Westernizing".

Westernisation is a process whereby societies come under or adopt the Western culture in such matters as industry, technology, law, politics, economics, lifestyle, diet, language, alphabet, religion, philosophy, or values.

It got me to thinking of the Roman Empire and how much people wanted in it, or at least to trade with it. They wanted to Romanize. To do things the Roman Way. BUT at the same time people like to think their way is the best way. Their language it best. Their culture is best. Etc... What must it be like to think that AND have to look over and see how much better things are over on there. Take North Korea, they still like to think NK is GREAT! Even though they can look over and see that even China is better. (being an American I've never been confronted with this reality )

I imagine that it's a bitter pill to swallow - and most people will not swallow it willingly.


Where is this going? Why is this in the religion catagory? Well, stop and think about the Qur'an for a moment. The Qur'an is completely based in Western Ideology (Christianity). Even Mohammad being a Prophet of the One God is Western Ideology. The Qur'an is a nifty little way for Arabs to be Westernized without realizing it. They adopt Western culture (over their nomadic culture) all the while thinking it's actually "Arab". Intentional or not, that's the way it played out. Look at all the things "Western" (aka Roman) in "Islam".

- Starting with the Qur'an (Based on the Roman Bible - we could go on here).
- Mosques (based on a Roman dome)
- Head covering (Byzantine/Roman)
- etc....

It's obvious that part of the role the Qur'an played, was designed to play, was to sweeten the pill during the Romanization/Westernization of Arabs BY Arabs (or at least a couple well traveled Arabs).

Anyway, just interesting thought that occurred to me,
Michael

 

[lightgigantic]

errr .... I think there are more social implications to the word "western" aside from geography

 

[Doreen]

I was thinking about this concept of "Westernizing".

I am not sure if One God is Western. It seems Middle Eastern, though it occurs elsewhere, if anything. And the Middle East was hardly seen as Western, nor is it today. But there certainly is something similar about monotheism, the Roman Empire and modern neoliberalism: hierarchy, aims at global control and co-opting. They are viruses that have worked together.

 

[Michael]

errr .... I think there are more social implications to the word "western" aside from geography

go on....

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I am not sure if One God is Western. It seems Middle Eastern, though it occurs elsewhere, if anything. And the Middle East was hardly seen as Western, nor is it today. But there certainly is something similar about monotheism, the Roman Empire and modern neoliberalism: hierarchy, aims at global control and co-opting. They are viruses that have worked together.

*************
M*W: No, the idea of one god is not of Western origin. The concept of monotheism originated from Egyptian worship of the sun (and not the 'son'). This concept arose at a time when people worshipped objects in the solar system: Planets, stars, constellations, and Earthly elements.

 

[Michael]

But there certainly is something similar about monotheism, the Roman Empire and modern neoliberalism: hierarchy, aims at global control and co-opting. They are viruses that have worked together.

Interesting. What memes are you talking about?

Could monotheism+Empire+neoliberalism be a new amalgamated mutated mega-meme

 

[Doreen]

Interesting. What memes are you talking about?

Could monotheism+Empire+neoliberalism be a new amalgamated mutated mega-meme

Not so new. One key transition was when corporations gained the legal status of people and no longer could be unincorporated by the people, amongst other things.

 

[lightgigantic]

go on....

unless you are talking solely about issues of geography, its not clear how arabs accepting Mohammad are being westernized

 

[Michael]

Not so new. One key transition was when corporations gained the legal status of people and no longer could be unincorporated by the people, amongst other things.

True, but, the people seem happy to play their part in the large scheme of things. I mean, if ever there were a time to reset the American aristocracy it was 8 months ago. BUT, Americans are too weak and scared to live Free.

 

[Doreen]

True, but, the people seem happy to play their part in the large scheme of things. I mean, if ever there were a time to reset the American aristocracy it was 8 months ago. BUT, Americans are too weak and scared to live Free.

Not much training in it. Most outside the box thinking - which often only seems outside the box because of the strange box that gets called reality - is shamed or punished. Think about how much kids are encouraged to come up with something new, in ideas or interpretations, in school. Think of all the shit you have to put up with if you decide not to be a Democrat or a Republican. 'You are throwing away the vote." "You are allowing evil to take over." (but maybe you are) Often there are seen to be two choices, and that's it. If you have a problem with the aristocracy, as you put it, you are a commie and want to send people to gulags and set up Mao or Stalin here. Which translates into
shut up.

And this is all in place by 14 at the latest. I mean think about what is said and done to the kid wearing the 'wrong' clothes and sneakers these days. OK. There are a few ways of being OK, one for each group, but if you're not a goth or a stoner or a gansta wanna be or a jock, then everyone thinks you're fucked up.

Individuality is choosing from the offered styles.
Democracy is choosing between the two candidates approved of by the aristocracy.
'Philosophy' comes down to choices between organized religion or atheism.

Find the box and climb in. Funny how much it looks like a coffin.

 

[iceaura]

Christianity is more an Easternizing of the West, than Islam is a Westernizing of the East.

If that kind of language is informative

 

[Doreen]

Christianity is more an Easternizing of the West, than Islam is a Westernizing of the East.

If that kind of language is informative

Could you say why.

For me the historical nature of Christianity complete with second comings and chosen people and the book of revelations and all that sets it very firmly apart from Eastern religions which seem either timeless of cyclical. And while some religions in the East are very specific about morals, the focus on rules, rather than say states of consciuosness, seems rather different.

Of course these are just a couple of aspects of the religions. Interested to hear what you meant.

 

[iceaura]

For me the historical nature of Christianity complete with second comings and chosen people and the book of revelations and all that sets it very firmly apart from Eastern religions which seem either timeless of cyclical.

Not to write an essay here, but:

The origins of the Abrahamic monotheisms are east of Europe proper, despite being west of India and China; directly on the crossroads of three continents and the first region to have farms.

The emphasis on humility and submission to a social order, the mimicry of Heaven's arrangements on earth, the "as above, so below" extended to (or from) the family level seems to me more Eastern than, say, the Roman, Druid, Viking, Celtic or otherwise pagan stuff of Europe. The worldview of Jesus or Mohammed looks more like the worldview of the Buddha or Mo Tzu or Confucious or Lao Tzu than it does like the spirit of Valhalla or Ragnarok, no?

So the Abrahamic religions spread westward, in general, and were from the east over much of their early range, and emphasized humility and submission so a social order.

 

[Doreen]

double post. I thought one could delete, but I can't seem to find it.

 

[Doreen]

Not to write an essay here, but:

The origins of the Abrahamic monotheisms are east of Europe proper, despite being west of India and China; directly on the crossroads of three continents and the first region to have farms.

The emphasis on humility and submission to a social order, the mimicry of Heaven's arrangements on earth, the "as above, so below" extended to (or from) the family level seems to me more Eastern than, say, the Roman, Druid, Viking, Celtic or otherwise pagan stuff of Europe. The worldview of Jesus or Mohammed looks more like the worldview of the Buddha or Mo Tzu or Confucious or Lao Tzu than it does like the spirit of Valhalla or Ragnarok, no?

So the Abrahamic religions spread westward, in general, and were from the east over much of their early range, and emphasized humility and submission so a social order.

Sounds reasonable. And I think that is part of why Rome took on Christianity. If you hare a huge very complex, hierarchical society, that kind of social submission can be very helpful. More tribal, clan based systems have less need for that. They don't have 'the masses' in the same way or at all if the tribe is small enough.

I am not sure if Mohammed or the Old Testement are closer to the Vikings or the Buddha however. Jesus I can see.

 

[Michael]

unless you are talking solely about issues of geography, its not clear how arabs accepting Mohammad are being westernized

Christianity is more an Easternizing of the West, than Islam is a Westernizing of the East.

If that kind of language is informative

In Mohammad's time there were two empires. Roman (Western) and Persian (Eastern).

There's no good contemporary evidence of Mohammad. So maybe he's made up. But, IF there was a Mohammad, then what was his reasoning for preaching the Bible to Arabs? IF we can make the assumption he was not crazy, then we know he knew he wasn't speaking to Gods or Angels - so why did he pretend to? What was his aim if not to Westernize Arabs. Remember, Mohammad didn't have any intent to conquer Persia or Byzantine. He just simply wanted to remake nomadic Arabs into .... what? I'd venture to say Westernized Arabs. Mohammad could have have decided he was an Arab Prophet of the Arab religion. He didn't. He could have decided he was a Zoroastrian Prophet. He didn't do that either. Instead he became a Christian Prophet.

Remember, there was no such thing as "Muslims" that's a word that was foreign to Mohammad. A term made up decades after his death.

Anyway, I think he saw the life style of Westerns and wanted this for Arabs. So, one could say, Arabs have been Westernizing ever since....

 

[swarm]

In Mohammad's time there were two empires. Roman (Western) and Persian (Eastern).

Um Persia was its own Empire. The eastern Roman empire was the Byzantine empire aka Greek. The Romans failed to conquer Persia and suffered an embarrassing defeat where the emperor was captured and the killed and the troops picked up a plague with decimated the empire (this was before the east/west split).

Since the Greeks and Persians have hated each other since before there was a Rome, its best not to confuse the two.

 

[birch]

Westernisation is a process whereby societies come under or adopt the Western culture in such matters as industry, technology, law, politics, economics, lifestyle, diet, language, alphabet, religion, philosophy, or values.

It got me to thinking of the Roman Empire and how much people wanted in it, or at least to trade with it. They wanted to Romanize. To do things the Roman Way. BUT at the same time people like to think their way is the best way. Their language it best. Their culture is best. Etc... What must it be like to think that AND have to look over and see how much better things are over on there. Take North Korea, they still like to think NK is GREAT! Even though they can look over and see that even China is better. (being an American I've never been confronted with this reality )

I imagine that it's a bitter pill to swallow - and most people will not swallow it willingly.

It's important not to confuse culture with technology. Higher technology would usually make another culture or country afford better living overall but there is a cost to that too.

But culture can be something that is similar to style in analogy and that is much more personal. That is why the overruning of one culture over another can be negative or undesirable too. Some of it can be good and some of it can be not so good and even some positive or unique aspects of another culture can be lost.

An example would be if china were 'easternizing' the world simply due to power gained due to technological innovation and everyone else was slowly replacing chinese with their language, cultural customs with theirs, their entertainment with theirs, their standard of beauty with theirs etc. Some of it will be benign or even inconsequential but some of it will be unnecessary, intrusive, overriding and negative to the core identity that is also valid though different.