Some characteristics of the Western identity is as follows:
The founders of western civilization were the Greeks and Romans.
Much of modern western thought was developed in the Enlightenment, which values rationalism, free speech, republicanism, etc.
Christianity is a major, if not, the most integral piece of western identity, but its limited to Catholicism and Protestantism.
To be Western is to be white? USA, Canada, Australia, etc. are considered to be part of the Western world yet much of Latin America, although countries created by European colonization with European immigrants and Christian culture/religion, it isn't considered Western. Also, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, are not considered western, even though they do contain large swaths of European. This part of Western identity is the part I find most problematic.
I feel that there seems to be a "new" western identity. The "old" western identity was centric on Europe and rationalistic thought, while the "new" western identity is entirely dependent on how good of an ally you are to America. America in the new identity is considered to be the quintessential western country, while the old identity it was France. Could this transition from old to new be where Latin America was left out of the Western civilization?
How accurate is this description of the West?
Is this a homework or essay question? If so, please flag it as such.
I can't create a coherent definition of "western" that excludes Latin America. Latin American states adopted Iberian languages and the Catholic religion and were transformed mightily by centuries of European colonization.
The new western identity you describe is certainly something I see, but I don't think you have the right criteria. I'd consider NATO membership a far more important issue than US allegiance - some Latin American states were firm US allies during the Cold War, while some European states whose "western" orientation is hard to question were reluctant at best. Yet while the Cold War division of Europe played a major role in reformulating that definition, neutral but non-communist Ireland, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, and Austria are rarely excluded from the "west" as a concept.
As it stands the concept you describe seems to be "Western Europe plus English settler colonies" but it's not a particularly coherent one. I can see a case for Catholic/Protestant Europe being treated as a group, or Catholic/Protestant Europe plus all it's settler colonies, or for the Hellenistic heritage as a whole (though that group's much wider and has to include all of Orthodox Europe, and you can make a case for the Muslim world as well, or for the US-led bloc in international affairs. "Wealthy, stable, US-aligned democracies" might be a somewhat reasonable definition which excludes most if not all of Latin America... but that includes Japan and perhaps by now South Korea and Taiwan, and surely excludes any talk about Greek culture or Christian heritage.
The concept of the "west" seems to be a conflation of the five - but it's an uninformative mishmash more suitable for rhetorical flourish than historical analysis unless you clarify which "west" you mean.
hi! you might be interested in this post, which includes leads to a few more