I was aware of all those facts, and I'm certainly not going to argue them with you. You and I seem to have a different view of the concept of Western, that's all. In my book westernized doesn't make western. The 80 years of communism in Russia were the ones that changed it all. From my experience with Ossies and Kiwis, I'd say that a lot of them would feel somewhat annoyed at being called a western country, which would make them part of the pack, a thing they pride themselves not to be.

I'm firmly believe that the concept of "western" countries began with the fall of the Roman Empire, gained in strength during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and then reached a relatively final state with the birth of the United States. The two world wars changed that but little. So basically, I think that for most people when one says western person or country one refers to people or countries of (as I said before) Latin, Angle, and Saxon ancestry.

Now if one were to quantify the westerness (I like that word!) by how westernized a country is, then Japan would win the crest hands down.

So I think you and I basically agree that westerness is a highly relative concept. But (not wanting to knock down my country of adoption), since Japanese like to categorize (as do a lot of other nations and peoples) I think many use the term western with only the vaguest of idea of what it means. Why west? West of what? Relative to what? We live on a ball, everything is west of something. Everything. So technically, we're all westerners AND easterners. Cool, eh?