Did Western ideas, technologies and culture strengthen or weaken non-Western cultures in places like Asia, Africa, and Latin America? Why or why not
Hello, here's my thoughts. That's a pretty subjective question that you can answer either way depending on your view (or the point of view you think your professor wants to hear).
On the "pro-Western" side you can argue that democracy, capitalism, modern medicine, etc., helped bring up the standard of living throughout much of what we today call the developing world. India is a good example of a place where prior to European colonization was essentially a collection of autonomous kingdoms ruled by either Hindu or Muslim (Moghul) rulers. There was no modern infrastructure and no real nation as we know it today. Yet over time the British Empire built it up as the jewel of their own Empire and when India achieved independence, they had a fairly modern infrastructure in the form of roads, railroads, etc. They also had a new history of parliamentary democracy, civil service, and other things that they more or less inherited from the British. If not for European involvement, India would likely still be some semi-feudal collection of warring states ruled by rival princes.
You can make similar arguments for various parts of Asia. Hong Kong is now part of China, but for many years it was a British possession and it is now one of the most economically developed and dynamic parts of China and is helping to ...
How did Western ideas, technologies and culture strengthen or weaken non-Western cultures? This solution briefly examines the impact of such Western imports in Asia, Africa and Latin America - detailing benefits of medicine, science, economic development as well as the negative consequences of importing foreign cultural norms, political identities, and the economic exploitation of indigenous peoples.