In the West, at a mass media and social level (I would add: not historiographical, absolutely not), the belief has spread that the blame for everything bad happening in the world lies with the West, with us, always us, and therefore we are ultimately responsible even if apparently we have nothing to do with it. Federico Rampini has examined this issue in a recent successful essay, "The Suicide of the West," concluding that it is indeed our suicide because it takes away our confidence in our values, decisions, will. We do not agree with many positions expressed in the essay: in particular, it does not seem to us that the West is disarmed by this sense of guilt, which is present only in a part, moreover a minority, of our world: but certainly the problem exists. In fact, it seems to us that it is the generalization of anti-Americanism that flourished so much in the last century, within extreme left-wing circles, youth protest. In fact, it has been observed that the USA have led the West, they are, so to speak, the armed branch, so even if we Europeans have not participated directly, we are still morally responsible. The idea of America as the source of all evil is easily refutable by the simple observation that America has only been on the world stage for a century (let's say) but bad things have happened in history since we have records, and not just for 100 years. And as for the West in general, before the Western colonial expansion into the rest of the world, it's not like there were only roses and flowers. In general: if evil has always existed in history then it means that it depends on the fact that there is also evil in man (I would say: from the logic of things). Now it is unthinkable that in the last century the Chinese, Indians, Arabs, and Africans have renounced evil (the logic of things) and only the Americans (and Westerners) haven't. On the other hand, this is only a mass media, social fact: historians, political scientists don't talk about it. Historiography is made up of a series of scholars from all over the world who delve into historical events critically evaluating SOURCES and SOURCES and SOURCES and write books, which few read, with critical apparatus (that is, a list of sources) which is the majority of the books themselves. Then there have always been legends, rumors, hearsay, propaganda which in the current world are spread by the mass media and even more by social media which tell tales of dark conspiracies and absurdities like: those who assaulted the Capitol thought they were fighting against pedophiles. Historiography cannot be equated with political propaganda (which also has its importance) or even with ridiculous conspiracy theories.

The faults of the Westerners are inserted into impressive lists of atrocities, violence, unjust wars: we give a modest and moderate example War crimes of the United States in Afghanistan The massacre of three million Vietnamese The massacre of the Korean people by the United States in 1950 War crimes of the States in bombings on cities No distinction between military and civilians The disasters of Hiroshima and Nagasaki The massacre of 100 million Native Americans

These lists are a classic example of tendentiousness because the episodes are seen outside their context and therefore give a wrong, misleading idea. It is true that it is argued that it is not possible to justify saying that others have also acted badly. However, contextualization is important. If everyone throws garbage on the ground it means that whoever throws it is like the others, not particularly guilty, certainly not the source of all evil. But if no mother kills her child and if a mother does it is an unbearable abomination, it shakes consciences all over the world. Taking up the example made by Rampini in the cited book: certainly the most infamous thing for Westerners has been the trafficking of black slaves in America but it must also be said that slavery was widely practiced in Africa itself, that the Arabs for centuries have traded it, that the ancient world that we admire so much was economically based on it

WWII caused 60 million deaths: of course if the Western allies and Russians had not fought there would not have been any, but we would all have been dominated by the Nazis. Then there was the Cold War with perhaps 10 million deaths: of course if the Westerners and Americans had not fought it there would not have been, and now we would all be communists (like North Korea). Then there was jihadism with millions of other deaths: of course if it had not been fought there would not have been, and now we would all go to the mosque. Regardless of the fact that the vast majority of the victims were not directly caused by the Americans but by the warring parties: unfortunately wars bring deaths: but responsibility cannot be attributed to only one side in war I would say that wars are wars and when they break out then it is not possible to control them, things precipitate on their own as we see now also in Ukraine and Gaza In reality, in hindsight, we must recognize to the Westerners, particularly to the Americans, the merit of having fought and defeated these regimes that universal conscience has now rejected as the abominations of our century. Historians of the coming centuries will see in Nazism, communism (Stalin's and Mao's real ones, Pol Pot), jihadism the great evils of the last hundred years and therefore in America the power that overthrew them. Not because Americans were better than others (I don't believe in that) but because the cases of history pushed them to this The defense of Taiwan can be called American guilt if it has not only political freedom and democracy but a per capita GDP of $ 25,000, while China has $ 9,500 But even more striking is the case of Korea, for which the south has a per capita GDP of $ 33,300 and the north of 1,800 (very uncertain) regardless of freedom and democracy An interesting question is that of the American and Russian contribution to the often terrible events of the Cold War: without it, Menghistu or Pinochet or Suharto would have done what? In my opinion more or less the same things with the same results. Who could, for example, prevent Suharto, the army, Islamic fanaticism from committing the terrible massacre they did? Or Pinochet from gathering all the opponents in the stadium and so on. One thing is to support one side, another is to be responsible for what it does: you cannot blame everything on Westerners (or Russians): the Ethiopians, Chileans, and Indonesians in the cases mentioned did everything on their own even if they had and could not but have the support of the Americans or the Russians.

Even the role and efficiency of the CIA appear exaggerated. There have been many failures, mistakes: I was surprised that they got it right with the invasion of Ukraine. Did they have an informant in Putin's circle? There are different cases of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Cuba in which the direct use or military aid from one side or the other has been massive and decisive.

Then going back in time the legend of the genocide of the Native Americans of the West was born. but it did not happen as it is told by certain committed filmographies (Soldier Blue and surroundings). Examining the facts, there are only a few massacres of Indians, less than a dozen in 30 years with only a few hundred victims. The Native Americans were not at all exterminated: the number of their descendants is much higher than those of the 1800s and they are integrated into American society. Only a small part remained in reserves and live on tourism, legends, alcohol, and drugs

Another serious fault would be the massacre of the Amerindians at the time of the Spanish conquest. Certainly it was very bloody like any invasion especially if the two contenders are so radically different in civilization and level of development. However, if a small insignificant number of Europeans managed to destroy two great empires like those of the Incas in Peru and the Aztecs in Mexico it is because masses of indigenous enemies and oppressed joined them who saw them as providential liberators: think of the massive human sacrifices. It is true that the Amerindian population had a dramatic demographic collapse, unquantifiable (some say 90% but without reliable bases). But this was not due to the killings of the conquest which were still limited but to the spread of diseases brought by the Europeans for which the natives had no antibodies. On the other hand, it is not true at all that the Amerindians have disappeared. The population of Central and South America is made up of the descendants of those peoples with a very small contribution from Europeans given the difficulties of crossing the ocean. The conquest did not lead to the extinction of the Amerindians but to their inclusion in Western civilization. However, there are still large groups that have in some way maintained their original culture, including the language. Also, the cruelty of the conquistadors towards the natives is not as certain as one might think. Its description essentially comes from the texts of Bartolomeo de las Casas (leyenda negra) who asked the Spanish monarchs for norms for the protection of the natives which were actually issued although with modest results, it seems.

In conclusion, historically and truthfully, we must guard against two extremes: considering Westerners as the good or the bad of the world. Westerners are both one and the other because good and evil are in all peoples, they are in each of us But what must be noted is that in the end the European models are those that the whole world has accepted. All men of any nation wear European-style suits and ties and all brides wear white dresses.

 Certainly just a fashion but it has its meaning