Of course not. But one of its fundamental advantages is its ability to build alliances and accept immigrants. Historically, those have been strengths of republics. That’s “innate” to the structure of the society.
> the world's largest democracy is in south Asia
India is a great example of Western culture hybridising with a local culture to produce a sum that’s greater than its parts. The British were dicks, particularly in India, and I’m not arguing that colonisation is okay. But I think it’s fair to say that a unified, democratic India very much flows from its exposure to Western systems of law and government. (India had indigenous democratic city-states. But in the south and never at scale.)
“The west” as a culture or thought definitely doesn’t include Russia - like in a other comment in this thread it’s the US, EU and allies, so mostly NATO
Some common definitions of the west are white people, western European countries and their former colonies, and the US and their allies. Many such countries are democratic currently. None are democratic innately.
Immigrants and white people are unrelated categories.
> Okay, so your argument is that "the west" can only mean something "innate"?
Karp said the west is innately superior. JumpCrisscross suggested this was acceptable because democracies are innately superior to autocracies. But western countries are not innately democratic. And democracy is not innately western. Superiority is not innate if its basis is not innate.
> What makes makes the US "innately" white?
People who define the west as white people do not consider all Americans part of the west. And I said it was a common definition. Not good.
