Ask Lemmygrad

No, periphery.

They're part of the exploited nations and definitely do not gain from the imperial countries (and aren't imperialist)

Geographically yes. They are in the western hemisphere. Lets be obtuse and refuse to accept that Europe or Israel have anything to do with being called "western civilization" because they are in the eastern hemisphere. This is so that we can frame the conversation to being about exploitation and our desire to reduce it. Letting fascists control conversation about east vs west just feeds into fascist clash of civilizations tropes.

Global South, actually.

It's simple really. Latin Americans are taught that they are part of the West and feel Western.

Europeans say lol no.

To add on a little bit further, the definition doesn't come first as in the case of North America for example. The definition of Western is made post-hoc to describe an emotion and sense of belonging. Europeans feel it among each other and don't feel it towards Latin Americans. Latin Americans feel it towards each other and towards Europeans.

There can be no objective criteria to judge the answer, so there is no objective answer.

As an adjacent narrative, I can and will claim that Japan is Western and there is nothing you can do to disprove it.

Culturally yes, politically no.

No, because it doesn't profit off of imperialism.

I think Western/Eastern is a structure imposed by European colonialism and white supremacy. I think the question comes down to "west of what?".

It seems pretty clear that "West" as a concept rises from Western Europe and it's offshoots in the U$ etc.

Latin America has it's own settler colonial baggage, but it's not exactly the same as the U$ and Canada.

Idk, I'd say it's not, but I don't really feel too strongly about it.

The same longitude passes through Germany and Cameroon. Are they equally Western?

To be clear, I don't feel like what's Western is particularly important, and don't think it's worth arguing much about.

*Edit: on thought, it kind of feels like there're multiple definitions of "Western" floating around, and the disparity is making for confusion. I think "what do you mean by Western?" Is a good place to start.

When discussing this question, I think one should keep in the forefront that the “West”/“Western” labels are very, often—I’d say most often—used as a tool of oppression, including by people who aren’t aware of their own racism (maybe racism isn’t the most precise word here, but it’s the best I can think of). In most cases, I think these conversations are a mug’s game, because how do you know the amount of explicit or implicit racism the other converser’s hold?

Edit to add: It’s like Whiteness in that it’s continually being redefined to suit power dynamics.

As much as the elites here want it to be "the west", Latin America still is part of the global south.

Culturally I say that we are. Whether the collective West itself wants to include us or not.

Assuming you're talking about geopolitics, "the West" is colloquially used to refer to the imperialist countries, most of which are located in the "western half" (arbitrary, of course), but it doesn't include South America or the western part of Africa, and it does include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Occupied Korea, all of which are in the "eastern half". "Global north" might be a better alternative but it's not completely accurate

It's in the western hemisphere yes but when people refer to "the west" they are usually referring to America, Canada, and Europe. South and Central America are more often lumped in with the global south

I just saw two struggle sessions on Hexbear about this. The first one I think eventually got deleted, and this second one.

No lol.

Any country is part of the west as long as it serves the imperial core, but will be discarded as soon as they are no longer needed

I always assumed that they aren't, in the same easy that Australia is.