when you get stuck , you made such outlandish claims .
You've been making outlandish claims from the start, such as working on the assumption that Chile isn't a culturally western country. Between Latin American nations, it is among those with the most limited influx of non-western culture and demographics, at the opposite spectrum of say, Brazil.
Which is not too surprising either, since other than the fact that present day Chile wasn't too densely populated in pre-Columbian times, Portuguese colonialists contrary to the Spaniards and despite a similar tendency to discriminate against people of color, nonetheless encouraged "ethnic" mixing to some degree. Hence why in places such as Mozambique, Angola or Cape Verde, one will find proportionally more people of mixed African-European descent than in the typical former French, British, Belgian, German or Spanish colony of Sub-Saharan Africa.
you first call all Europe and America continent as western culture , later when the difference pointed to you you claim they have individual culture and all are not the same ,
Wordplay with no relevance to the discussion at hand. Culture can be subdivided quasi ad infinitum, there is even a local and an infra-local level of culture. But when speaking of the historic abode of western culture, western and central Europe as a whole obviously belong to that ensemble, notwithstanding national, regional and local specificity.
What you're contending now is like saying that since each region in Iran has some cultural features of its own, there is no such thing as a national Iranian culture - which of course, would be nonsensical.
Likewise, it's nonsensical to deny the existence of a western cultural domain stretching from parts of the Americas to large swaths of the European continent and including Australia and New Zealand, in spite of whatever regional and local nuances one might find within this geographical area.
It's akin to the principle of subsidiarity.
you always claimed these east Asian
countries as westernized , now you claim they are westernized in all aspect but some select area.
You started out by claiming Japan and Korea are more westernized than Chile. That's like saying they're more westernized than Spain or Italy. Which is meaningless.
This is another case of you needlessly prolonging an argument just for the sake of it, since I'm pretty sure you understand my point very well.
It's simple indeed: although quite thoroughly westernized - and globalized too, Japan and Korea maintain some token elements of indigenous culture, which suffice to differentiate them from Chile, given that the latter
is actually western from the cultural viewpoint.
Chile cannot have gotten western
ized because it has been culturally western from the get go. Japan and Korea on the other hand have undergone westernization because originally, they were fully alien to western culture.
