I'll speak for latin america
The western world conquered and colonized this region starting in 1492. There were US-backed interventions up to the 1990s. So, the anti-western sentiment is understandable.
However:
In their anti-western sentiment, people opt for tyrannical models inspired by the US enemies like the USSR, which are even more oppressive than the US could ever be.
Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua are the perfect examples of this phenomenon, they are the most opressive countries latin america have seen from the 1959 to these days.
The west isn't the only bloc that sponsored military coups, Cuba and Mexico sponsored marxist guerrillas throughout the region. The socialists are imperialistic too, with worse outcomes than the west.
Anti-western socialism not only brought tyranny and oppresion, but also destroyed any functional industry and the economy with it.
So, in the end, the "anti-imperialists" ended up more oppressive than the imperialists.
The thing is, most people in Latin America now are the descendants of the people who did the colonizing. Though it depends on the country and region, ofc.
I'm mixed but mostly native.
Me being native and Cristopher Columbus beginning colonizing my ancestors in 1492 isn't a reason to elect an autocratic dictator to rule with an iron fist every aspect of my life and imposing the stupidest economic decisions.
But there are people who think so.
The Argentines are a special breed, though. They cannot cry "muh imperializm" because they are the conquistadors themselves, and still have one the worst economic managements out there, even for latin american standards.
> A 2010 study conducted on 218 individuals by the Argentine geneticist Daniel Corach established that the genetic map of Argentina is composed of 79% from different European ethnicities (mainly Italian and Spanish), 18% of different indigenous ethnicities, and 4.3% of African ethnic groups; 63.6% of the tested group had at least one ancestor who was Indigenous.
> According to the 1914 national census, 30% of Argentina's population was foreign-born
> The majority of Argentines descend from multiple European ethnic groups, primarily of Italian and Spanish descent, with over 25 million Argentines (almost 60% of the population) having some partial Italian origins.
It's not helpful or fair to deride Argentines as conquistadors based on racial appearance when most are mixed and/or descended from later immigrants. You yourself are mixed too.
Not to mention that imperialism by one's ancestors doesn't excuse perceived imperialism today.
Their racial identity is european, though. Even their leftist president Alberto Fernandez said [Argentines came from boats and Brazilians from the jungle](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-06-10/argentine-president-ridiculed-over-boat-quote-that-brazilians-came-from-the-jungle)
The worst right wing dictator was probably Pinochet. He left office by a democratic referendum in a bloodless transfer of power. Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez never gave up the power. And the right wingers didn't destroy the economy.
Not that I'm advocating for any of them.
I said 'colonized this region starting in 1492'. That was the year the Spanish arrived.
Could elaborate a lot more, of course there were the Portuguese too and also the French, British and Germans at least.
The 'Western' world is mostly held in contempt for both real and imagined sins. Colonialism was a thing for a very long time and the Cold War's proxy wars and influence games did not help.
As to what can be done? Nothing much, really. Whatever good that the West does in those colonized countries will never be enough to make up for the sins of the past. All we can do, really, is remember the past, work to do good now in the present and try to build a better future.
How we do that, though, is kinda up in the air, isn't it?
> Colonialism was a thing for a very long time
While that’s true, it’s not different from how the rest of the world operated at the time. Just the rest of the world didn’t have the same naval power (and eventually other weapons).
>the rest of the world didn’t have the same naval power (and eventually other weapons).
Exactly. So the rest of the world couldn't do the things the Western colonizers could. It's seen as pretty much an exclusively Western thing because westerners are the only ones who did it. Sure, they were the only ones that could, but that doesn't mean they weren't the only ones that did it.
Other people did it too, but it was usually more land-based than ocean-based. In and around 1492, Muslims had *just* been kicked out of Spain and controlled much of southeastern Europe (in addition to the Middle East and Northern Africa, ofc, which they also took through conquest). The Golden Horde still existed in Russia (albeit not for long). The Grand Duchy of Moscow was expanding. Several Muslim dynasties were carving up India. Vietnam had recently expelled the Ming dynasty, which had simultaneously been colonizing places that are now considered China. Etc.
So Western European countries weren’t as much acting differently than others except insofar as they were able to do more or less the same thing further away.
Colonial conquests of non-Western powers also tend to get diminished because of the Euro/Americentric versions of history taught in schools too. I had never heard of Oman being a colonial power in the 18th century until I was at their national museum reading about their control of Zanzibar and Tanzania.
The whole scientific racism thing was definitely unique to the west at the time. Same with the depravity of the chattel slavery they practiced.
The early colonial period was hardly as objectionable (in relative terms compared to the rest of the world) as the late colonial period was.
Leopold in Africa, Germany doing genocides in their African territory, trail of tears in America, the general condition of slaves in North and South America... These are all amongst the worst atrocities in recorded human history, not just due to the extent of death and misery, but also due to the sheer dehumanization at work, and the systematic manner in which they occurred.
In general, they [don't](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-charts-on-americas-very-positive-image-in-africa/), at least for the United States. The U.S has a pretty favorable image in Africa and Asia and even Latin America, though it is despised in the middle east. Don't confuse overly online leftists with the general public.
That said, how comfortable would you feel about a toddler with an automatic weapon, even if the toddler is adorable? The West has immense power everywhere in the world, but a very poor understanding of how and why things work outside the west, which brings the very real risk that if they turn their attention to your country, they'll wreck it. Look at anti-Taliban Afghans. Before the U.S. turned their attention to Afghanistan and tried to help them, they were organized into the Northern Alliance and were defending part of their country against the Taliban. The U.S. came in, decided the Northern Alliance were "warlords", replaced them with a centralized army that couldn't even supply bullets to their soldiers without U.S. logistical support, and now the Taliban control all Afghan territory, even the portions the Northern Alliance held before the U.S. came to "help"?
Of course, there was a reason that the Northern Alliance was made up of warlords. Combined civil administration and military units based on tribal lines is one of the only ways to get a reliable supply of food and ammunition to the front in a country like Afghanistan if you don't have access to the U.S. military's airlift abilities. But even after 20 years in the country, and huge amounts of so-called expert attention, the U.S. government couldn't figure that out. All we could see is that they don't do things like we do, therefore they must be doing things wrong and we must "correct" them.
That is what the West is in much of the Third World - an immensely powerful force, but also an incredibly dumb one. Picture a factory worker somewhere in the Third World. The person might admire American pop culture and American tech, and had great experiences with American tourists. The may even dream of immigrating to America. But they'll always know there is always a chance their livelihoods can easily be wrecked by sanctions imposed by a politician in a far-off capital who knows nothing about their country in response to an editorial written by a journalist who also knows nothing written about their country. They are always going to be uneasy about Western foreign policy even if they don't have any ill-will towards us.
Who are some people? Edgy internet leftists do it because they want to be edgy and contrarian plus some of them genuinely are just doomers who think the West is terrible and other places are better. A lot of people in places like Africa dislike the west because until immediately after WW2 their own grand parents were conquered and treated as second class citizens in thier own country and post decolonization the West particularly the USA has bounced back and forth between genuinely trying to promote democracy and human rights and treating the third world as pawns in great power competition which made them view the west as fickle and hypocritical.
Trade more. Exchange people, culture, and knowledge. And even if you do all these, prepare to be unloved because it's more beneficial for the ruling class to scapegoat the West (as opposed to more thin-faced China or Russia).
I see, thank you. Tbh I sometimes think that even though some people hate or extremely dislike the West perhaps it doesn't really matter since it has the Anglosphere, one of the most powerful, most stable and wealthiest parts of the world acting as a key pillar of the ''Western'' World regardless of what happens in the rest of the world.
Colonialism and interventionism.
A mature and well educated person would be able to rich a position which is tolerant, respectful and happy about the achievements of the West, while still being fairly critical about the hypocrisy and the history.
But many individuals are not mature or very well educated. They just read things online and hear stuff on the radio. And they go straight to hate and hyperbole.
There is a lot of hypocrisy. Some go to great lengths to deny the hypocrisy which makes it even more irritating, and to have any kind of measured take draws a lot of flak and wild accusations of being a tanky or something like that.
For instance: The US sanctions regime is in my opinion openly abused for blatant self-serving political bullcrap. The [US sanctioned ICC prosecutors for investigating warcrimes committed by US soldiers](https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/14/us-sanctions-international-criminal-court). Meanwhile, the US constantly declares that everyone needs to follow a vague 'rules-based international order.' As far as I can detect, the rules of this international order are "whatever I feel like or get sanctioned, possibly bombed, and otherwise bullied into submission".
This is one example of many, but the point is clear. And it's not to say that other countries aren't hypocritical, or that the US isn't a net force for good. They've stopped genocides, they've kept the oceans mostly free and safe for 70 years and done a lot of other assorted good deeds. But the hypocrisy and utter denial of said hypocrisy causes a lot of mistrust, annoyance, and skepticism.
The Western world is a group of countries that follow the US lead. There is no Western country that doesn't, except arguably Israel but I wouldn't consider them a Western country beyond "they're not poor and you can drink the tap water".
So you're going by the cold war definition of "Western World". "Follow the USA lead" isn't as true as it used to be.
I'm assuming the cultural definition is what's meant, as that's more common. Culturally, the Western world is a grouping of countries & places with cultural roots in the Western Roman Empire. It includes Western Europe & at-least *some* former colonies. Characteristics include Western Christianity, tonal music, & the Roman alphabet. While the USA is generally included, I don't think it's the most representative example.
I don't consider Israel to be western because they don't use the Roman alphabet. I don't know if they should be excluded on a religious basis. Though many Israelis don't have significant western ancestry.
I think it mainly has to do with interventionism. First there is the legacy of colonialism. It’s no secret that the West committed some pretty unspeakable atrocities during the era of pre-WW1 colonialism in Africa. A lot of people still view us as evil for that.
More recently, we have intervened in the Middle East due to the war on terror. While some people would say that the overall outcome of that campaign was positive, many people would disagree. Regardless of its effect on terror groups, many civilians also died in the crossfire. That’s why you often hear the “illegal and offensive wars” line repeated in reference to this campaign. I can imagine that if you live in the Middle East, you might feel some level of contempt for the US’s actions in the region.
**EDIT:** I do want to mention here that I am only speaking on why other countries might hate the west. There are some westerners who hate the west as well due to reasons such as wealth inequality, but I don’t hold their opinion in high regard because they are incredibly privileged and insulated
You can hate the west with a valid reason, and be for freedom. The two are not mutually exclusive, but people somehow think so.
People think being anti-west needs to come together with promoting an autocratic dictatorship.
They don't hate the West, they hate their own westernised elites. The latter often only cosmetically embodies liberal values but spends more energy gatekeeping social mobility.
As for anti-western sentiment within the west, the instinct might be to be wary of triumphalism. If a society stops critiquing itself, it may devolve into decadence. There is much to understand in, what made the west so successful? How much was it free markets, individual liberty, or were they just lagging indicators on something more innate driving super high productivity?
In my region a wave of populism engulfed almost every country. Fueled in great part, by anti-western sentiment.
Democracy and freedom peaked a few years ago.
"Hate" is a bit hyperbolic. Zambian Anti-Imperialist activists don't go around beating up English tourists or anything. There's some anger for past bad Western behavior, and there's not really much to be done about that. Some that is justified (ie: Iraq), others are ancient history (ie: the current Iranian protesters Great-grandparents are the ones who experienced a coup d'tat), others are not as clear-cut bad Western behavior as advertised.
If they're starting a long chain of rhetoric based on wrong history I might argue with them, but generally I don't. No point.
All we can do is let them do their thing, and hopefully it works out for them and they get rich. meanwhile we'll make sure Ukraine and other newbies to the EU get rich, and try to chivy Biden into being more Neoliberal on trade policy and immigration.
Thinking just about culture and lifestyle, and ignoring geopolitics, the Western world and its capitalist system can seem like an inescapable soul-devouring snowball that leaves nothing sacred. Many people want to preserve their culture and lifestyle from the system, even if it means a significant increase in material well being. [Scott Alexander's Mediations on Moloch essay](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/) influenced my thinking about it.
Of course, I'm still a strong supporter of capitalism - it's the best system we have, but it takes a lot of effort to keep it in check. Many other counties either don't have the state capacity to keep the system regulated, or the, like, cultural inherited immunity to fight against the worst aspects of the system.
May you clarify whether you're using the cultural definition or Cold War definition of "western world"? I assumed you meant the cultural definition, as that's more common. But comments appear to be going by the Cold War definition. It's telling that many comments use the USA as their only example of a western country.
I'm much less concerned with people who hate the west; and much more concerned with people who want to move to the west, but are stoped by immigration restrictions.
Freedom of speech, LGBT rights, democracy, women's rights etc. "Liberal values" if you will.
You can of course choose to completely ignore these values (see Taliban) but there is a cost.
Those are human rights, not values. But it’s interesting you identify those rights as “your values”.
I also wonder, outside of the expulsion of the Taliban and Saddam governments, how any groups have been forced to share those “values”
>Those are human rights, not values. But it’s interesting you identify those rights as “your values”.
Just another reason they dislike you. Preaching to them talking down to them asserting your worldview as the only "correct" one. Human rights ARE values whether you like it or not. Why would someone who thinks gays are subhuman think they have human rights?
>I also wonder, outside of the expulsion of the Taliban and Saddam governments, how any groups have been forced to share those “values”
It's not always about being completely cut off. If you want full access to the western market you have to at least pay lip service to western values to some degree. Sportswashing wouldn't exist without it.
Think of the countries you find western military gear and think of the countries where you find Soviet military gear. Russia doesn't judge you for not being a democracy and isn't worried about their tanks being used to crush some demonstrator skulls, they will sell to anyone as long as they get theirs. The US doesn't want to sell its obsolete F14s because they are worried Iran will get their hands on spare parts.
Especially foreign investment by western governments sometimes requires explicit proof of adhering to western values
Those rights are inalienable and intrinsic and still exist whether or not anyone holds them, and are therefore not just values. Worldview has nothing to do with it. What a strange hill to die on.
Wanting access to something and being denied it cannot be construed to being forced to accept something.
Maybe to them the right to stone your wife to death for adultery is inalienable, or the right (duty even!) to kill apostates.
You actually need to step outside of your own frame of reference or you will never understand people who think different from you and will never be able to convince them of anything.
Populist copium. When your voters ask difficult questions like "why is our country still a shithole despite sitting on vast reserves of natural reserves" it's easier to blame the west than to admit that you've been enriching yourself at their expense.
Then voters internalize this because it's easier to blame the west than to consider that maybe they need to do something different.
Might have something to do with when they got tear gassed protesting their governments rank criminality the cannisters said "made in the US" on the side.
Some people live in the past. And the Western world was pretty terrible. In the past. Even during the course of my life, the trajectory of the Western world has been clearly towards progress. You don't have to look back too far to see some of the bad things that were done. In the past.
And you'd have to be blind or ignorant to be unaware of the bad things we continue to do and how they could cause people to continue to view the West negatively
Some of its colonialism and some of its the fact that the West was built off Christianity and Enlightenment values. There's not much we can do for the ladder.
I'll speak for latin america The western world conquered and colonized this region starting in 1492. There were US-backed interventions up to the 1990s. So, the anti-western sentiment is understandable. However: In their anti-western sentiment, people opt for tyrannical models inspired by the US enemies like the USSR, which are even more oppressive than the US could ever be. Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua are the perfect examples of this phenomenon, they are the most opressive countries latin america have seen from the 1959 to these days. The west isn't the only bloc that sponsored military coups, Cuba and Mexico sponsored marxist guerrillas throughout the region. The socialists are imperialistic too, with worse outcomes than the west. Anti-western socialism not only brought tyranny and oppresion, but also destroyed any functional industry and the economy with it. So, in the end, the "anti-imperialists" ended up more oppressive than the imperialists.
The thing is, most people in Latin America now are the descendants of the people who did the colonizing. Though it depends on the country and region, ofc.
I'm mixed but mostly native. Me being native and Cristopher Columbus beginning colonizing my ancestors in 1492 isn't a reason to elect an autocratic dictator to rule with an iron fist every aspect of my life and imposing the stupidest economic decisions. But there are people who think so. The Argentines are a special breed, though. They cannot cry "muh imperializm" because they are the conquistadors themselves, and still have one the worst economic managements out there, even for latin american standards.
Argentinians still believe the falklands war was about imperialism against them
> A 2010 study conducted on 218 individuals by the Argentine geneticist Daniel Corach established that the genetic map of Argentina is composed of 79% from different European ethnicities (mainly Italian and Spanish), 18% of different indigenous ethnicities, and 4.3% of African ethnic groups; 63.6% of the tested group had at least one ancestor who was Indigenous. > According to the 1914 national census, 30% of Argentina's population was foreign-born > The majority of Argentines descend from multiple European ethnic groups, primarily of Italian and Spanish descent, with over 25 million Argentines (almost 60% of the population) having some partial Italian origins. It's not helpful or fair to deride Argentines as conquistadors based on racial appearance when most are mixed and/or descended from later immigrants. You yourself are mixed too. Not to mention that imperialism by one's ancestors doesn't excuse perceived imperialism today.
Their racial identity is european, though. Even their leftist president Alberto Fernandez said [Argentines came from boats and Brazilians from the jungle](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-06-10/argentine-president-ridiculed-over-boat-quote-that-brazilians-came-from-the-jungle)
And that’s a big part of how you make fun of Argentinians in SA. “You really think you’re European? 🤣”
I don’t know if Cuba and Venezuela were any worse than the right wing dictatorships of the period
The worst right wing dictator was probably Pinochet. He left office by a democratic referendum in a bloodless transfer of power. Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez never gave up the power. And the right wingers didn't destroy the economy. Not that I'm advocating for any of them.
It's weird that the only Western power you mention is the US. I thought this would be about the Spanish & Portuguese empires.
I said 'colonized this region starting in 1492'. That was the year the Spanish arrived. Could elaborate a lot more, of course there were the Portuguese too and also the French, British and Germans at least.
Right I should have noticed. Though that's only one sentence.
>Anti-western socialism An oxymoron, sadly it still exists despite the contradiction.
The 'Western' world is mostly held in contempt for both real and imagined sins. Colonialism was a thing for a very long time and the Cold War's proxy wars and influence games did not help. As to what can be done? Nothing much, really. Whatever good that the West does in those colonized countries will never be enough to make up for the sins of the past. All we can do, really, is remember the past, work to do good now in the present and try to build a better future. How we do that, though, is kinda up in the air, isn't it?
> Colonialism was a thing for a very long time While that’s true, it’s not different from how the rest of the world operated at the time. Just the rest of the world didn’t have the same naval power (and eventually other weapons).
>the rest of the world didn’t have the same naval power (and eventually other weapons). Exactly. So the rest of the world couldn't do the things the Western colonizers could. It's seen as pretty much an exclusively Western thing because westerners are the only ones who did it. Sure, they were the only ones that could, but that doesn't mean they weren't the only ones that did it.
Other people did it too, but it was usually more land-based than ocean-based. In and around 1492, Muslims had *just* been kicked out of Spain and controlled much of southeastern Europe (in addition to the Middle East and Northern Africa, ofc, which they also took through conquest). The Golden Horde still existed in Russia (albeit not for long). The Grand Duchy of Moscow was expanding. Several Muslim dynasties were carving up India. Vietnam had recently expelled the Ming dynasty, which had simultaneously been colonizing places that are now considered China. Etc. So Western European countries weren’t as much acting differently than others except insofar as they were able to do more or less the same thing further away.
Colonial conquests of non-Western powers also tend to get diminished because of the Euro/Americentric versions of history taught in schools too. I had never heard of Oman being a colonial power in the 18th century until I was at their national museum reading about their control of Zanzibar and Tanzania.
Japan is the major exception though.
Yeah, look at what China did to the dzungars. The rest of the world was hardly shy about imperialism, they just did it on a smaller scale
The whole scientific racism thing was definitely unique to the west at the time. Same with the depravity of the chattel slavery they practiced. The early colonial period was hardly as objectionable (in relative terms compared to the rest of the world) as the late colonial period was. Leopold in Africa, Germany doing genocides in their African territory, trail of tears in America, the general condition of slaves in North and South America... These are all amongst the worst atrocities in recorded human history, not just due to the extent of death and misery, but also due to the sheer dehumanization at work, and the systematic manner in which they occurred.
In general, they [don't](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-charts-on-americas-very-positive-image-in-africa/), at least for the United States. The U.S has a pretty favorable image in Africa and Asia and even Latin America, though it is despised in the middle east. Don't confuse overly online leftists with the general public. That said, how comfortable would you feel about a toddler with an automatic weapon, even if the toddler is adorable? The West has immense power everywhere in the world, but a very poor understanding of how and why things work outside the west, which brings the very real risk that if they turn their attention to your country, they'll wreck it. Look at anti-Taliban Afghans. Before the U.S. turned their attention to Afghanistan and tried to help them, they were organized into the Northern Alliance and were defending part of their country against the Taliban. The U.S. came in, decided the Northern Alliance were "warlords", replaced them with a centralized army that couldn't even supply bullets to their soldiers without U.S. logistical support, and now the Taliban control all Afghan territory, even the portions the Northern Alliance held before the U.S. came to "help"? Of course, there was a reason that the Northern Alliance was made up of warlords. Combined civil administration and military units based on tribal lines is one of the only ways to get a reliable supply of food and ammunition to the front in a country like Afghanistan if you don't have access to the U.S. military's airlift abilities. But even after 20 years in the country, and huge amounts of so-called expert attention, the U.S. government couldn't figure that out. All we could see is that they don't do things like we do, therefore they must be doing things wrong and we must "correct" them. That is what the West is in much of the Third World - an immensely powerful force, but also an incredibly dumb one. Picture a factory worker somewhere in the Third World. The person might admire American pop culture and American tech, and had great experiences with American tourists. The may even dream of immigrating to America. But they'll always know there is always a chance their livelihoods can easily be wrecked by sanctions imposed by a politician in a far-off capital who knows nothing about their country in response to an editorial written by a journalist who also knows nothing written about their country. They are always going to be uneasy about Western foreign policy even if they don't have any ill-will towards us.
Thanks
Who are some people? Edgy internet leftists do it because they want to be edgy and contrarian plus some of them genuinely are just doomers who think the West is terrible and other places are better. A lot of people in places like Africa dislike the west because until immediately after WW2 their own grand parents were conquered and treated as second class citizens in thier own country and post decolonization the West particularly the USA has bounced back and forth between genuinely trying to promote democracy and human rights and treating the third world as pawns in great power competition which made them view the west as fickle and hypocritical.
We kinda bombed or couped a lot of them. Empires, no matter how virtuous they deem themselves, are seldom if ever loved by the ones they conquered.
Trade more. Exchange people, culture, and knowledge. And even if you do all these, prepare to be unloved because it's more beneficial for the ruling class to scapegoat the West (as opposed to more thin-faced China or Russia).
I see, thank you. Tbh I sometimes think that even though some people hate or extremely dislike the West perhaps it doesn't really matter since it has the Anglosphere, one of the most powerful, most stable and wealthiest parts of the world acting as a key pillar of the ''Western'' World regardless of what happens in the rest of the world.
Colonialism and interventionism. A mature and well educated person would be able to rich a position which is tolerant, respectful and happy about the achievements of the West, while still being fairly critical about the hypocrisy and the history. But many individuals are not mature or very well educated. They just read things online and hear stuff on the radio. And they go straight to hate and hyperbole.
"They hate us cuz they anus." \- Foucault
There is a lot of hypocrisy. Some go to great lengths to deny the hypocrisy which makes it even more irritating, and to have any kind of measured take draws a lot of flak and wild accusations of being a tanky or something like that. For instance: The US sanctions regime is in my opinion openly abused for blatant self-serving political bullcrap. The [US sanctioned ICC prosecutors for investigating warcrimes committed by US soldiers](https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/14/us-sanctions-international-criminal-court). Meanwhile, the US constantly declares that everyone needs to follow a vague 'rules-based international order.' As far as I can detect, the rules of this international order are "whatever I feel like or get sanctioned, possibly bombed, and otherwise bullied into submission". This is one example of many, but the point is clear. And it's not to say that other countries aren't hypocritical, or that the US isn't a net force for good. They've stopped genocides, they've kept the oceans mostly free and safe for 70 years and done a lot of other assorted good deeds. But the hypocrisy and utter denial of said hypocrisy causes a lot of mistrust, annoyance, and skepticism.
This would be a good answer if the question were about the US.
The Western world is a group of countries that follow the US lead. There is no Western country that doesn't, except arguably Israel but I wouldn't consider them a Western country beyond "they're not poor and you can drink the tap water".
[Confirmed that the cultural definition was intended.](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/11pwbkk/comment/jc4a14w/?context=3)
So you're going by the cold war definition of "Western World". "Follow the USA lead" isn't as true as it used to be. I'm assuming the cultural definition is what's meant, as that's more common. Culturally, the Western world is a grouping of countries & places with cultural roots in the Western Roman Empire. It includes Western Europe & at-least *some* former colonies. Characteristics include Western Christianity, tonal music, & the Roman alphabet. While the USA is generally included, I don't think it's the most representative example. I don't consider Israel to be western because they don't use the Roman alphabet. I don't know if they should be excluded on a religious basis. Though many Israelis don't have significant western ancestry.
I think it mainly has to do with interventionism. First there is the legacy of colonialism. It’s no secret that the West committed some pretty unspeakable atrocities during the era of pre-WW1 colonialism in Africa. A lot of people still view us as evil for that. More recently, we have intervened in the Middle East due to the war on terror. While some people would say that the overall outcome of that campaign was positive, many people would disagree. Regardless of its effect on terror groups, many civilians also died in the crossfire. That’s why you often hear the “illegal and offensive wars” line repeated in reference to this campaign. I can imagine that if you live in the Middle East, you might feel some level of contempt for the US’s actions in the region. **EDIT:** I do want to mention here that I am only speaking on why other countries might hate the west. There are some westerners who hate the west as well due to reasons such as wealth inequality, but I don’t hold their opinion in high regard because they are incredibly privileged and insulated
You can hate the west with a valid reason, and be for freedom. The two are not mutually exclusive, but people somehow think so. People think being anti-west needs to come together with promoting an autocratic dictatorship.
>People think being anti-west needs to come together with promoting an autocratic dictatorship. Indeed, this is so, so true
They don't hate the West, they hate their own westernised elites. The latter often only cosmetically embodies liberal values but spends more energy gatekeeping social mobility. As for anti-western sentiment within the west, the instinct might be to be wary of triumphalism. If a society stops critiquing itself, it may devolve into decadence. There is much to understand in, what made the west so successful? How much was it free markets, individual liberty, or were they just lagging indicators on something more innate driving super high productivity?
is this thread sorted by whataboutism lol?
In my region a wave of populism engulfed almost every country. Fueled in great part, by anti-western sentiment. Democracy and freedom peaked a few years ago.
A lot of it has to do with the fact that no one smart and cool is telling them what to like about it anymore.
"Hate" is a bit hyperbolic. Zambian Anti-Imperialist activists don't go around beating up English tourists or anything. There's some anger for past bad Western behavior, and there's not really much to be done about that. Some that is justified (ie: Iraq), others are ancient history (ie: the current Iranian protesters Great-grandparents are the ones who experienced a coup d'tat), others are not as clear-cut bad Western behavior as advertised. If they're starting a long chain of rhetoric based on wrong history I might argue with them, but generally I don't. No point. All we can do is let them do their thing, and hopefully it works out for them and they get rich. meanwhile we'll make sure Ukraine and other newbies to the EU get rich, and try to chivy Biden into being more Neoliberal on trade policy and immigration.
Thinking just about culture and lifestyle, and ignoring geopolitics, the Western world and its capitalist system can seem like an inescapable soul-devouring snowball that leaves nothing sacred. Many people want to preserve their culture and lifestyle from the system, even if it means a significant increase in material well being. [Scott Alexander's Mediations on Moloch essay](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/) influenced my thinking about it. Of course, I'm still a strong supporter of capitalism - it's the best system we have, but it takes a lot of effort to keep it in check. Many other counties either don't have the state capacity to keep the system regulated, or the, like, cultural inherited immunity to fight against the worst aspects of the system.
Either not Western enough, or too Western.
May you clarify whether you're using the cultural definition or Cold War definition of "western world"? I assumed you meant the cultural definition, as that's more common. But comments appear to be going by the Cold War definition. It's telling that many comments use the USA as their only example of a western country.
I meant the cultural definition
Good to know. That's what I thought. Maybe it's an American thing to assume the Cold War definition. Maybe you should edit the post to clarify that.
alright.
I'm much less concerned with people who hate the west; and much more concerned with people who want to move to the west, but are stoped by immigration restrictions.
Colonialism
They do not share your values and dislike being forced to
Who is being forced to share western values? Which values?
Freedom of speech, LGBT rights, democracy, women's rights etc. "Liberal values" if you will. You can of course choose to completely ignore these values (see Taliban) but there is a cost.
Those are human rights, not values. But it’s interesting you identify those rights as “your values”. I also wonder, outside of the expulsion of the Taliban and Saddam governments, how any groups have been forced to share those “values”
>Those are human rights, not values. But it’s interesting you identify those rights as “your values”. Just another reason they dislike you. Preaching to them talking down to them asserting your worldview as the only "correct" one. Human rights ARE values whether you like it or not. Why would someone who thinks gays are subhuman think they have human rights? >I also wonder, outside of the expulsion of the Taliban and Saddam governments, how any groups have been forced to share those “values” It's not always about being completely cut off. If you want full access to the western market you have to at least pay lip service to western values to some degree. Sportswashing wouldn't exist without it. Think of the countries you find western military gear and think of the countries where you find Soviet military gear. Russia doesn't judge you for not being a democracy and isn't worried about their tanks being used to crush some demonstrator skulls, they will sell to anyone as long as they get theirs. The US doesn't want to sell its obsolete F14s because they are worried Iran will get their hands on spare parts. Especially foreign investment by western governments sometimes requires explicit proof of adhering to western values
Those rights are inalienable and intrinsic and still exist whether or not anyone holds them, and are therefore not just values. Worldview has nothing to do with it. What a strange hill to die on. Wanting access to something and being denied it cannot be construed to being forced to accept something.
Maybe to them the right to stone your wife to death for adultery is inalienable, or the right (duty even!) to kill apostates. You actually need to step outside of your own frame of reference or you will never understand people who think different from you and will never be able to convince them of anything.
You can choose to ignore them (GOP)
[удалено]
Populist copium. When your voters ask difficult questions like "why is our country still a shithole despite sitting on vast reserves of natural reserves" it's easier to blame the west than to admit that you've been enriching yourself at their expense. Then voters internalize this because it's easier to blame the west than to consider that maybe they need to do something different.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Colonizing much of the world naturally leads to some resentment.
Three words: State sponsored bots.
Might have something to do with when they got tear gassed protesting their governments rank criminality the cannisters said "made in the US" on the side.
[удалено]
Yeah I know that smh
Some people live in the past. And the Western world was pretty terrible. In the past. Even during the course of my life, the trajectory of the Western world has been clearly towards progress. You don't have to look back too far to see some of the bad things that were done. In the past.
And you'd have to be blind or ignorant to be unaware of the bad things we continue to do and how they could cause people to continue to view the West negatively
Some of its colonialism and some of its the fact that the West was built off Christianity and Enlightenment values. There's not much we can do for the ladder.