Nah mate,
Rich powerful countries could also keep slaves and no one would be able to stop it by force.
But they don't. Civilisation advances.
Rich powerful countries could also keep slaves and no one would be able to stop it by force.
But they don't. Civilisation advances.
"The west" is no longer a well defined thing. America is its own thing now, and I don't think it fits in with any traditional notion of "The West" anymore, outside of historical inclusion. And without America the term just means Europe, so you might as well just refer to things directly instead of coming up with a new term: America, Europe, Canada, etc.
It provides no analytical value anymore to talk about "the west" as a shared family of identities or cultures. That concept was more an ephemeral artifact of some colonial history combined with the post WW2 global landscape and the fact that the US was the last industrialized country remaining that didn't have its industrial base bombed to smithereens.
But when I'm talking about is hundreds of years ago. History goes back more than a few months.
What I don't understand is what analytical value the term "the west" holds anymore, OUTSIDE of that historical artifact. What meaningful statement can you make about "the west" as you define it these days?
Judging by ever shrinking middle class, rise of poverty and few rich owning the rest of the world it is heading back to that state. Have nots are not slaves by definition but their lives are getting worse and worse and where does that end?