Now you are behaving as if a single definition by a single author (albeit occasionally, but not that widely quoted by others) is indeed relevant as much as etymology of the word used through several languages (such as Latin "oriens/orient- and Greek despot-). Which it by no means is.

Yes, I was pointing out the ridiculouslness of a claim by Weber, and yes the examples stand very strongly that despotism is a universal human trait and that the idea that the East (or the West, or the North and South, as cultural concepts) are this and that is pathetic.

Japan is definitely Oriental and it is known for cruelty to POWs in Indonesia and elsewhere and horrendous attrocities to civilians in China, but it is also a mature parliamentary democracy today. But Australia lies to the east of Japan (its easternmosta nd most important cities, anyway) and is thus more "oriental" in MY meaning (as opposed to the one you push forth). And indeed it is despotic in how it treated the Aboriginees, the nature by destroyinh the balance, and indeed in its beginnings most of non-Aboriginee population who was sent there as convicts.

So -- yes: I am relativising your outdated concept that belongs to a small group (sect, almost) of a single social science (political sociology), and which has been rejected early on by virtally all anthropologists and cultural theorists of note and most historians (granted, some historians subscribe to this notion, mostly North American ones).

Anyway...