The following is a post I made earlier, which I felt worthy of a thread:
BigC,
"Those who incessantly whine about anti-Americanism..."
You and I are the same breed of cranky curmudgeon. I would happily commiserate with you on all of the offending characteristics of American culture that you mentioned above.(1) However, I consider them to be a by-product of post-industrial societies consistent with political stability and economic affluence. Japan is even worse when it comes to the mindless frivolity of consumer mass idiocy. China is also well on its way to national Babbittry.(2) As America was the first society to achieve on a massive scale what Thorstein Veblen derisively termed "The Leisure Class", this process will forever be known as "Americanization".
Intellectuals and moralists of every stripe deplore the corruptive influence of Americanization on the presumed purity of their cultures. Momo (intellectual) despises plastic pumpkins;(3) Osama Bin Laden (moralist) despises the sight of Arab girls in mini-skirts. They are both (all) fighting an uphill battle, because their true enemy is not the influence of America, but the reality of human nature. Honestly, the probability that the noble peasants of the world are dreaming of fake tits and an i-phone has very little to do with American "cultural hegemony".
I can fully accept that the tallest nail is the one that gets hammered. I can appreciate the fact that people feel a need to protect their national character. However, I can't stomach intolerance, prejudice, and misinformation.
European Anti-Americanism has become a force unto itself. It is almost a universally defining characteristic of European progressives. They imagine themselves to be fighting social, moral, cultural, and intellectual decay, and are thus deeply suspicious of anything emanating from The States. I see America and Europe as partners in the promotion of liberal social, political, and economic values, but I also see Europe as more inclined to view America as an enemy of some sort that desperately needs to be stripped of its power and influence. This is ultimately self-destructive in my opinion.
To you, it is merely a reflexive impulse to believe urban legends.(4) To me, it is evidence of a deeper philosophy quite pervasive in your neighborhood. I am not challenging you because you dislike McDonald's and a Coca-Cola-drinking Santa Claus. I am challenging you because you (as a typical Eurotard) refuse to consider the impact that American Biotechnology could have on global hunger, or the importance of American-led efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq, or the global benefits of a devalued Chinese currency, or the paramount importance of a nuclear-free Middle East, all because you resent efforts to market to you some abominable culinary abstraction called a "McGriddle".
1. "Whether you are talking about the Disnification of the likes of Mary Poppins or Winnie the Pooh, awful beer, the eclipse of the adverb or a milk shake which is thickened with cold chicken fat, (American culture) has been almost excusively negative." BigC
(2) Babbitt, first published in 1922, is a novel by Sinclair Lewis. Largely a satire of American culture, society, and behavior, its main theme focuses on the power of conformity, and the vacuity of middle-class American life.
(3) "I hate pumpkins made of plastic with batteries inside, blinking and squeaking, and on Reformation Day at that... there are some very strong commercial interests pressing Halloween on us. I resent the resulting disappearance of Reformation Day and Rummelpottlaufen on New Year's Eve...I simply want our own customs instead of yours here." Momo
(4) "...a (McDonald's) milk shake ... is thickened with cold chicken fat..."BigC
Are you really insisting that the things we complain of are American culture? You left a bit out when you quoted my post about plastic pumpkins:
“If you tell me now that plastic pumpkins aren't central to your Halloween customs, and not exactly "American culture": it's what I have always suspected.”
Can you answer that? I always thought that the Halloween that is sold to us is a distortion of an American custom. If you tell me now that my suspicion is wrong, and that these horrible things are indeed central to this custom, umm, er, then I am against American culture. Is it really not more than marketing?
I wasn’t talking of retaining the purity of our cultures, I was talking about the difference of cultures changing with the citizens changing versus cultures being destroyed by commercial interests.
I believe BigC is right: you really have a chip somewhere that makes you sense anti-Americanism whenever we say McDonalds or plastic pumpkin.
“The importance of American-led efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq” is quite a different matter. It definitely clashes with every concept of culture! I wish very much we weren’t American-led, and you were led by reason (and that means end what was wrong from the beginning).
'I believe BigC is right: you really have a chip somewhere that makes you sense anti-Americanism whenever we say McDonalds or plastic pumpkin.'
Momo,
I disagree, I think Jay's problem is that he's really secretly afraid that the 'European progressives', as he calls them, just may be right about America's economic, social, moral, and intellectual decline, and this frightens him. Have to keep this short though, I don't want to miss the upcoming CNN story on President Obama honouring Bruce Springsteen at the White House, or the Tiger Wood's sex story for that matter...
People, unless you've lived for at least a few weeks among folks from "the country" in the US you have no clue about American culture. Americans have beautiful culture, intense history, they are hard working, hospitable humble people with a strong sense of morality, fairness, and respect for individual freedoms. "The rest of the world" keeps getting a very distorted impression of the American culture from the screen and unfortunately the entertainment industry is to blame for it. Also "the rest of the world" makes the mistake to identify US culture with it's politicians. We wouldn't like to identify Italian culture with Berlusconi alone or the German culture with Hitler and so on. So in all fairness, please don't politicize the American culture to the point of anti-americanism. Instead, take a trip to a small town in the US, share a meal with three generation american family, spend a few days around their work place, listen to the lyrics of a few country songs, delve into the myths, superstitions, humor, family values of the American family and then you can perhaps form an honest opinion.
"People, unless you've lived for at least a few weeks among folks from "the country" in the US you have no clue about American culture."
I'm quite sure that's at least partly true Tiger. I say "partly" because the overwhelming majority of US folks do not live in the country. Having said that, the city folks I have met have not been far off your description of hard working, humble and hospitable.
"So in all fairness, please don't politicize the American culture to the point of anti-americanism. Instead, take a trip to a small town in the US, share a meal with three generation american family, spend a few days around their work place, listen to the lyrics of a few country songs, delve into the myths, superstitions, humor, family values of the American family and then you can perhaps form an honest opinion."
Again, who could disagree with this? A bit difficult on my budget but I've spent the whole of life doing the bit from "listen to the lyrics " onwards. An incredible country with an incredible history.
Hi Tiger,
Jay and I have a history, so don't take my 'tongue and cheek' too seriously. The question, however, regarding a decline of American 'values' is a valid question, but this isn't a forum for such serious questions, keep thing light here.
BTW, I have extensive experience with the US, both living, working, and vacationing, not to mention my perverse fascination with American politics, so trust me, I have earned the right to criticize your great county.
cheers.
Momo,
The thesis of this thread is that the concept of "Americanization" in the international apprehension is actually a stage in societal evolution, the concept of which has been perverted by hysterical leftist Europeans to represent "being overrun by highly-militarized, zealously nationalistic, fundamentalist Christian profiteering Republicans with an M-16 in one hand and a McGriddle in the other", to the detriment of our ability to work together for common Western liberal values on this planet.
If I address this pumpkin fascination of yours, can we please get on with things?
Halloween, as far as I know, has its roots in some pre-Christian pagan ritual of Europe. Children go around from house to house soliciting candy, and the standard method of carrying this candy is a plastic pumpkin about the size of a ladies purse. That is honestly all I know about plastic pumpkins. I am very sorry that this bizarre holiday that I don't even understand is being marketed in Germany. If it is any consolation to you, there is a German sedan in my driveway, a Grundig radio on my desk, some German chocolate on the coffee table, and some absolutely disgusting concoction in the cupboard called "Grafschafter Goldsaft Zuckerruben-Sirup". I can promise you that whatever these Americans have foisted upon you isn't half as bad as that shit.
BigC,
"A question Jay: How many "Eurotards" have you actually met and engaged in conversation? Have you even been to Europe?"
My answer to that question would not serve your interests, so I will skip it. Instead, lets assume that I am a provincial Texas redneck who has never traveled farther than the county fair. I am sitting on the couch in my double wide trailer covered with cow dung, watching Fox News and eating Campbell's Pork 'N Beans straight out of the can. Would that make my points above any less valid?
Do you, or your peers, even know the reasons given when the Americans refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol?
" Instead, lets assume that I am a provincial Texas redneck who has never traveled farther than the county fair. I am sitting on the couch in my double wide trailer covered with cow dung, watching Fox News and eating Campbell's Pork 'N Beans straight out of the can. Would that make my points above any less valid?"
I suspect you wouldn't be making such points if that was the case. Rednecks have great wisdom about many things. You only have to listen to the different genres of American folk music to know that. Such wisdom would preclude making statements about something without learning what it was first. (To be fair they wouldn't have been taken in by chicken fat milk shakes either - they'd want proof that it was good quality chicken fat)
"Do you, or your peers, even know the reasons given when the Americans refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol?"
The US is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol Jay. I think you're talking about ratification. All sorts of excuses were given but you can get a reasonable dip at them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#United_States
BigC,
"Do you, or your peers, even know the reasons given when the Americans refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol?"
I know the reason. I am asking you if you know the reason. This is one of the subjects that always comes up with our European cousins who are so frustrated with America, but they never asked themselves "why?". Why did America think it was an stupid treaty? I can't make the italics stop. I have to end this.
You're quoting back your own quotations Jay. Try reading all the words in the reply. My answer pointed out that the US did in fact sign it and that various excuses were given for not ratifying it. I still don't understand why you're asking this question.
How should I know what "my peers" (that means equals by the way) know?
With regard to your (altered) quotation: By substituting "(American culture)" for "it" and removing it from the original context you have changed the meaning of the sentence to one which is necessary to support your thesis. I was comparing the enhancement of our cultures by immigrants (about which our resident Little Englander was complaining) with it's commercial debasement. I wasn't attacking American culture - for which I have the highest regard.
Your thesis appears to be that your country represents the zenith of human progress. Most of the world wishes to emulate this except for a bunch of dog in the manger "lefties" who won't accept the obvious truth that it is leading the way forward.
I don't think you have the slightest idea what "lefties" actually are Jay. I have no disagreement with the idea that the US up to the 1970s was at the forefront of much human progress. Or at least one of it's forefronts. Capitalism has created a fantastic world beyond the wildest dreams of those who lived just a few generations ago. Now it's drifting into terminal dysfunction and new ideas are needed for us to move forward. The force which gave the US the lead in this has long dissipated. It is currently moving forward on momentum only - like a howitzer round about to begin the downward fall of it's trajectory.
"I am challenging you because you (as a typical Eurotard) refuse to consider the impact that American Biotechnology could have on global hunger, or the importance of American-led efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq, or the global benefits of a devalued Chinese currency, or the paramount importance of a nuclear-free Middle East, all because you resent efforts to market to you some abominable culinary abstraction called a "McGriddle".
Everyone gets taken in by urban myths from time to time jay. Disgusting though it is, the nature of the "food" served up by the fast food giants does not form the basis for my political beliefs, nor of my opinion of your country. It certainly doesn't inform my views on "American" Biotechnology (other countries do it too you know!), the Iraq and Afganistan disasters, the forthcoming Chinese economic eclipse of the US or the "nuclear free" Middle East - I'm only aware of one country there with nuclear weapons.
You've refused to answer how many "Eurotards" you;ve actually met. I suspect it's actually none so you're not really qualified to identify a "typical" Eurotard are you?
Chris,
You are probably right, and that fear explains Jay’s usual aggressiveness. Unfortunately he seems to think that he can stop the process by fighting everyone and everything progressive.
Tiger Step,
Since Jay won’t answer that and you stepped in: who do you think is saying that American culture is not beautiful? Relax a bit, can you? I don’t identify American culture with Jay, and anti-Jayism isn’t necessarily anti-Americanism.
Jay,
Good news that you can't stomach intolerance, prejudice, and misinformation. It would be better if you stopped to spread it then.
But you won’t say where you got your wisdom about European progressives. European progressives seem to be a very monolithic lot, while US American reactionaries probably are not. You are even sure you know what European progressives “imagine”! And now you want to hear that this sounds definitely like somebody who can’t stomach intolerance, prejudice, and misinformation. I’d better not comment that, for one reason only: Mike is always too eager to censure my posts to you. Got it?
The US used to stand for admirable liberal social, political, and economic values, but not today, Jay. Now they stand for the erosion of civil rights, torture, war, and rapidly spreading poverty for the benefit of some very few profiteers. And unfortunately Europe has followed them there. That doesn’t mean that I see America as an enemy, not even the US which you obviously mean: I happen to be less prone to generalisations than you. The neo-liberal policy you always defend is my enemy.
What is a McGriddle?
The culinary equal of liverwurst.
I'm monitoring closely, mouse button poised to strike...
Jayson,
Here I thought you were a smart guy, someone who could avoid repeating mistakes. What happened last time you started a thread? "Democracy and Power" was it? Seems as though you obligated yourself to a year and a half of "thrust and parry" because you felt responsible for initiating the mess. (Although it did provide some of your more memorable, long-winded tirades.)
Allow me to toss out a differing view, probably just a matter of semantics, but...
I don't know that the U.S. has a "culture." A variety of "styles" maybe, but no real culture. BC likes folk music, and thinks of it as American culture. Nope. It's just one style among many. Rock, rockabilly, zydeco, blues, country, modern country, polka, hip-hop, disco (thank god we killed it), rap (I hope we kill it), mountain dulcimer, and on, and on. The point is, there is no "American music culture" other than "play what you like."
McDonalds is not "American cuisine." McDonalds is simply one company which found a niche, a service, and a way to profit enormously from it. There's a crapload of hamburger-joint brands here. McDonalds is just the most successful. But, even with that enormous success, hamburgers are not perforce, the cuisine of America, nor do hamburgers represent our culture. Neither does the success of Kentucky Fried Chicken make pressure cooked chicken our culture. McDonalds and KFC just represent a couple of styles. Others include: whole hog BBQ, crawfish gumbo, oysters and beer, Memphis-style ribs, Kansas City style ribs, planked salmon, lutefisk, pizza, tacos, four-inch-thick Texas steaks, Maine lobsters, and god knows what else you'll find around the country.
Neither is WalMart the "culture of American retail." It may be the part y'all see, but it's the equivalent of McDonalds. It's found a niche and been successful. But, it's no more American than Dollar General, Macy's, Toys-R-Us, Ma and Pa's Jot-em-down store, Marshall's, Pennys, Sears, Frederick's of Hollywood, and on and on and on.
I think you Eurogese only see our "big" stuff, and think that's us. It's not. We're a million little things, differing across the landscape, with a handful of giants that spill across our borders. You think KFC represents American fried chicken. Hell, every gas station, or little store, in my part of the world, has some little old lady frying up chicken in the back room. And every one has their own style. (I remember a GQ magazine article one time; The Top Ten Places You Must Eat Before You Die. It listed five-star hotel restaurants in Paris, Sushie bars in Tokyo, and all kinds of hyper expensive places to eat. In amongst that list it said, "No matter how far you have to fly to get to Memphis, Tennessee, do it. Then drive about an hour Northeast to the little town of Mason. No one on earth makes chicken like Gus's." Damn, that place had good chicken. The place was not much bigger than a good sized living room. The back half was filled with cast-iron pots filled with boiling oil, over open flames, with the whole family battering and cooking, walls covered with a dark coating of fuzz covered soot and oil... Damn, it was amazing. Until the whole place caught fire, a few years ago, and burned to the ground.)
The point is... We have no culture. We have a collection of styles, gathered from every corner of the earth, modified to varying degrees.
Momo says we used to stand for "admirable liberal social, political, and economic values." Those are ideals. There are lots of others. Justice, truth, rewards for hard work, family, equality. That is not our culture, it is just a commonly held belief system. And, being ideals, we sometimes fall short. Falling short does not mean we value those ideals any less.
There is no threat of American culture running roughshod over others, or replacing the cultures of other lands. American influences are just the scattering, and redistribution of styles from all over, improved and re-transmitted. We're just the conduit for the world to influence the world.
In my opinion, "culture" implies a unified, singular, approach to food, dress, music, art, and whatever. By our very nature, there cannot be an "American culture."
Alan, have you noticed that nobody here (excepting Jay) has claimed that McDonalds or plastic pumpkins are “American culture”? Can you tear your mind away from them?
A variety (or collection) of "styles": That’s a nice definition of culture, you just don’t notice it. Your list of “styles” is very unexhaustive, but the important thing is: they have been invented in America and couldn’t have been invented anywhere else. This makes them “American culture”.
Oh no, that would be McDonalds and so on. The artificial and the cliché. So this why you insist everyone else sees them as American culture. You are the ones who do!
Culture lives of variety, there must be interchange between varieties, because culture can never be static: it would be dead then.
So that’s why you always feel hurt when someone criticises the destruction of culture by commercial interests: just because you think the US don’t have a culture, you must blame the “Eurogenese” or “Eurotards”.
"BC likes folk music, and thinks of it as American culture. "
Nope I think of it as a reflection of a part of American culture. You can learn an awful lot about the country America once was by listening to country, bluegrass, cajun, blues etc.
Momo's pretty much nailed it with regard to the definition of culture. The variety of which you speak is present in every country everywhere. Or at least it has been in the past. When I was a child you could travel all over England and Wales (I had never visited Scotland at that time) and find different varieties of food and music and ways of looking at life which stemmed from geography, localised economics and of course history.
Just 25 years ago I remember driving north to south through France and experiencing the same thing: different shops, delicacies, dialects etc.
Even your rather chauvinistic exceptionalism is not exceptional. When I was a child we still had an Empire Day and classes were suspended while we were regaled with all the wonderful things which we had introduced to the world. Most Brits of my age left school with the impression that the British Empire had been the most progressive institution in history. It took me years to realise that it had actually been a rapacious and brutal kleptocracy - and it will be many years to come before the population as a whole comes to terms with that. Just as many americans beleive that Iraqis and Afghans should be grateful for having the [left out to save Mike the trouble] bombed out of their countries there are still Brits who think that the humble hottentot should be grateful for the chance to find Jesus in his tin shack instead of roaming the bush with a full belly.
Looking around at the present conditions of former colonies, I'm glad we were once a British colony. I have a sneaking suspicion most former British colonies feel the same. The majority of former Spanish colonies are a F*cked up mess. You guys did a hell of a lot better than others. I appreciate the legacy you left.
The majority of former Spanish colonies are a F*cked up mess
Many of which are in South America and were for a long time subject to American interference (read Imperialism). The 'war on drugs' was a) the product of American culture, fuelled by an irrational, counterproductive, religiously motivated moralism, and b) the furtherence of US economic/global trade interests - from the very first days of the international ban on the opium trade. The war on drugs had a massive negative affect both on Southern American societies and your own. But it also provided an opportunity to further US foreign policy interests. And before you thank us in Britain too quickly lets not forget we also were in charge of a lot of Africa and we gifted the world with many of the issues causing the problems which are to be found in the middle east today. I can tell you a lot of people in those places aren't that enthuisiastically supportive of the whole period of colonialism thing.
The problem with Americanisation (spelt with an 'S') is that as cultural hegemon the US feels/perpetuates the myth it's culture to be the purest of all and seeks to force that way of living on others. Hence the war on drugs, the war on terror, the 'democratisation' of the 'backward' countries of the world. In reality this is realist politics clothed in a thin veneer of idealism. It is not for the benefit of the world that the US seeks cultural domination it is for its own interests. Don't kid yourself it's any different.
Before the US, us Europeans travelled the world brutally suppressing native peoples and annexing their resources and we justified it with very similar arguments. We were bringing development and a moral code in the form of a ancient desert cult. Cortes is a great example of economic interests (gold) being clothed in some kind of moral crusade (the conversion of the 'savages'). Long before that the Romans did it to us.
Europe is really not in a position to complain. The US is effectively the bulbous fruit of our sticky loins. The Anglo-Saxon bent that dominates the basis of US culture was manifested over here in Blighty centuries ago. The British, Dutch, Spanish and French all played the major roles in moulding what the US became. The US is a product of European Imperialism and if we don't like how it turned out, well that's our fault. We reap what we sow.
There are uniquely American traits that have been borne out of 'personal'/national history. There is a puritanical streak stronger than in Europe - religion dominates thinking far more than is so in most of Europe. There is the, related, general colonial attitude characterised in the belief of a divine/manifest destiny to conquer and control 'your god given' land. A product of the one time European's need to justify a presence in a 'new world' and the insecurities about inferiority to, and in some cases rejection by, the 'old world'. US culture is not all bad by any means; US culture can and has led to both good and bad ends.
Europe is like the parent bemoaning how the bolshy cocksure teenager has turned out; how they behave, act, what they value and what they don't, that hoody they wear. We sit on the sofa whilst the US watches MTV and we make snide comments about the quality of programming – but we still watch. The US has the remote control and won't relinquish it back to Europe now or ever more. Europe used to control the TV once, now our time is over. Time for the US too is running out. There's a guy down the block who's been in bed with flu for a few centuries but he's getting better. His name is China. But somehow that really doesn't comfort me - that sofa's going to be terribly cramped, the atmosphere fairly awkward and, most importantly, I'm no good with chopsticks.
All I'll say is that if he asks for the remote be a good lad America and give it to him – Europe has neither the inclination or ability to get into those kinds of scraps anymore.
Maybe it’s just me but I eye all ‘culture’ with suspicion. To quote some people smarter than me; ‘A man should be just cultured enough to be able to look with suspicion upon culture at first, not second hand’. Generally ‘culture is an instrument wielded by teachers to manufacture teachers, who, in their turn, will manufacture still more teachers’.
God bless America and all who sail in her. Peace
Nah. They were F*cked up from day one. Long before we started to diddle with 'em. And way, hell and gone, long before the "war on drugs."
While I will agree a lot of Britain's African colonies have not turned out quite as functional/prosperous as the U.S., Canada, Australia, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, et. al., Kenya and South Africa (while at times quite disfunctional) seem to have fared better than the former African colonies of some other nations.
You did, however, thoroughly f*ck up the Middle East. Thanks for that.
And, finally... Since the subject of "culture" quotes has come up, my favorite has always been one I always think of whenever someone says the word "horticulture":
You can lead a horticulture, but you cannot make her think.
You did, however, thoroughly f*ck up the Middle East. Thanks for that.
You're more than welcome. In the holiday season it is good to remember that it is better to give than it is to recieve.
That stopped when we hit the Pacific. We coulda turned north, but it's too damned cold, and the locals are too boring to deal with.
Nothing will convince Alan that Latin America isn’t in need of being strangled by the US’s outstretched hand, oops, the import of freedom and democracy at gunpoint (wrong again), favourable terms of trade… I’ve muddled up this sentence completely. Hope you understand it however.
And yes Alan, they were fucked up from day one. One of the reasons is Latin America’s wealth. It was the place to exploit, get rich, and go home again. Your part of the continent was right to dump the unwanted on, with no chance to go back. Obviously this creates some motivation in the immigrants to build a future in the new country.
It wasn’t the intention of the imperialist powers though, their motive was greed, and it still is. You are free to express your gratefulness to Britain of course, but don’t demand the same gratefulness from the victims of your sort of imperialism.
Randon, it doesn’t look as if you eye all culture with suspicion: even if you have never in your life had the impulse to sing, to whistle, to paint (not even drawing a doodle?) and aren’t interested in your food, you are using a language to express yourself. You can’t escape culture, you are part of it (although we get another impression of what culture is in school).
I agree. 100%. Most of Latin America's wealth went back to Madrid. The point is: We didn't f*ck it up. Spain did. Blaming the U.S. for 500 years of f*ckedupedness is disingenuous.
Oh, I forgot Portugal. They had a minor hand in it too.
My point is: you are doing it now. Blaming Spain (or Portugal) for 517 years of f*ckedupedness is disingenuous.
We got involved in several things that we should not have. I agree. However, I suspect the U.S. has used very, very little force in Central and South America, especially in comparison to what Eurogonian powers have happily done around the world, with massively larger amounts of brute force.
Perhaps I am misinformed. Perhaps you could help educate me. Which South/Central American countries currently have U.S. troops stationed, dictating "freedom, democracy, and favorable terms of trade"? Which countries currently have U.S. marines, standing in Palaces, appointing Viceroys? (Point of a gun, you know)
Don't exaggerate your naivity, Alan. There are some subtler means, and whenever they fail, it's the time for some proxies. Are you telling me that you really have no idea how this is done?
That's what I figured. So, we stand in front of a mirror, looking at the reflection of our great big muscles, and all the pantywaists south of our border git skeered and fall into line. Jeez, I'm glad to descend from the Brits.
True Momo. As I mentioned there are good aspects and bad to culture. Where culture I think becomes dangerous is where it restricts certain freedoms or limits the ability to think and express freely. I can think of a lot of situations where culture is used merely as an excuse to maintain existing power relations and to 'legitimately' disempower certain people or groups. The treatment of women (FGM for example) in many cultures, the fundamentals of slavery in 19th southern US or the culture clash between the war on drugs and the indigenous use of the coca leaf in South America - all legitimised through the use of 'cultural' arguments or argued from a cultural standpoint.
This would be, I suppose, a marxist view/definition of culture.
It's how you define culture. Whether it is the plastic pumpkin or the soically accepted norms of society or some amalgamation/meeting point of both.
One of the things in Britain recently has been the desire to protect our own culture and the notion of Britishness. It is ironic however that if there is anything that defines Britshness it is individualism and liberalism and it is therefore antipathetic to the attempt to define it as anyone single thing.
When you say I can't escape culture I presume you are saying that we are all products of social conditioning. To a point I agree but I also think that as individuals we are capable of thinking outside those boxes. I think some of us find that easier to do than others. If it were not possible postmodern theory would, possibly, not exist and all cultures would be stagnant. Stagnant cultures die, just as in the natural world species unable to adapt go extinct.
Just to pick up on one of Alan's points.
Which South/Central American countries currently have U.S. troops stationed... etc
I would say that Colombia is one of those countries heavily influenced by the US even today. I don't know if the deal has actually gone through but in August there was agreement that US marines could base themselves in one of seven military bases in the country. US troops were also stationed in Honduras during the recent coup in June. And there was almost certainly US military involvement in the attempted coup in Venezuela some years back. You also have your bases in Guantanamo of course.
No one in the U.S. gives a happycrap about the indigenous populations chewing leaves. It's the tons and tons of the powdered form we object to.
Perhaps you might want to comment on exactly how effective that base has been in forcing the government of Cuba to fall lockstep behind us.
I will give Castro credit. At least he had the balls to tell the U.S. to get stuffed. He has proved it's possible to "do your own thing" and not git skeered of the big muscled Americans. He proved you don't have to knuckle under. He has convinced the world that any petty dictator can ignore U.S. pressures to allow freedom and democracy, remaining dictator for life, and can drive an entire country into the dirt. But, heck, at least Cubans all get to drive those classic, old, '57 Chevys. He certainly showed the Russians and Chinese the route to avoid turning to capitalism. Oh, wait. They are becoming capitalists. Bunch of pussies.
Randon, culture seems to be something prescriptive for you: laws and customs (and their ideological justification) that restrict an individual’s freedom of thinking and expressing themselves. Social conditioning.
There’s far more to it. Look at language alone. The Inuit have about 30 words for the different sorts of snow they need to distinguish, and they can distinguish them easily: the differences leap to the eye, they are talking about completely different things. Not to my eye, I am unable to distinguish 30 sorts of snow, and so are you, probably. You make grammatical distinctions about actions that happened in the past that I find simply superfluous (and extremely hard to learn). I am used to think about gender whenever I use a noun or adjective, which would probably be hard for you. These different modes of expression influence the thinking of course, and these are boxes you can’t get out of.
I’d say we are not aware of most aspects of our cultures most of the time, we simply take them for granted. Only when they are threatened we notice what we are about to lose. Sometimes we welcome this, sometimes we try to retain our culture.
At present we debate this all over Europe only thinking of the changes immigrants bring us. There are more of them because distances in general have lost importance. That makes travelling easy or our conversations here, but it lets regional products and specialities disappear and small languages die. Same cause for all of this: our means of transport.
Us good ole boy rednecks have about 30 words for different kinds of porno. They leap to the eye too, if you know what to look for.
You forget that the dictatorial Jay has already decreed that we must treat him as a redneck—on this thread. Two playing that role is too boring. And keep away from the animals.
Anyone south of the Mason-Dixon Line is certified by the ARC.
Alan,
Do you really want to deny that the US use not only legitimate means to influence Latin America, and that they stage a coup occasionally? It’s not a rhetorical question: I know that one feature of American culture is an amazing indifference towards the rest of the world, and I wonder if you really don’t know or if you want to provoke me.
Talking about American culture: I know of course that the US have more public libraries per capita than most other countries … have you ever thought of reading up Latin American history?
Er, your last paragraph: “turning to capitalism”? Can you explain what you mean, and what else you think they have? I thought it is common knowledge that socialism failed because it has never been implemented, and capitalism failed because it has. (Latin American wisdom by Ernesto Cardenal)
Never have denied it. That's why I wrote this sentence earlier: "We got involved in several things that we should not have. "
Actually, to be more acurate, it's a common "myth" among leftists. Meanwhile, businesses continue, private enterprise is recovering from the latest recession, and capitalism proceeds through normal, self-correcting systems which have sustained it through much worse.
Socialism failed because it does not reward effort. Capitalism has ups and downs in the short term, but continues to provide the best opportunities to stimulate growth because it does. If you think capitalism is dead, you're "nucking futz". (That's a German term, isn't it?)
Do I get the tenses wrong again? I am talking about the present. You are involved in several things that have nothing to do with freedom and democracy and that's mildly put.
I am not saying that capitalism is dead, I say it has failed. Enjoy the recovery of the self-correcting system as long as you can believe your myth.
No, it’s not a German term. This one is: Träum weiter.
"Träum weiter"
Perfect description of American culture.
Never thought of it, but you are right.
How did you manage to translate it?
It may be that I recall it being said by my old High School Algebra/Calculus teacher, Ernest Bahn. We called him Mr. Ernie. Spoke with a pretty heavy accent. Always wore long sleeve shirts. I think that was because he was embarrassed about the number tattooed on his forearm. His whole family escaped the communist bloc by hiding under the hay in a haywagon, after the war. What was left of 'em, anyway.
But, I digress. Please, continue bashing the horrible U.S. for all our evil deeds.
Wow, what an impressing story. So there were some of his family left. That was true for few families. He was reunited with them so quickly, normally it took months even to get news of other survivors. They made it all the way from Auschwitz (the only place where people were tattooed with these numbers), although they must have been in very poor health. They managed to travel on their own, although that was strictly forbidden. They didn’t starve on the way, although they had no ration cards (displaced persons didn’t get them. They would have been fed in a d.p. camp where they would have prevented from travelling on their own). All this so quickly that they reached what was to become the Iron Curtain in the few weeks where haywagons were still allowed to pass. Although they were obviously Eastern European (they wouldn’t have needed the haywagon otherwise), they weren’t sent back. Very unusual, normally the western allies fulfilled this obligation under the Yalta agreements even if it meant death for the person who was sent back.
If I didn’t know for sure that Ernest Bahn’s story is true because you told me so, I would think it’s another attempt of someone (usually with little knowledge of the historical facts) saying that because my nation has more than enough evil deeds to be ashamed of (which is perfectly true), we aren’t allowed to criticise evil deeds when we see them. I don’t accept that of course. Can you tell me any reason why I should?
Did I say "immediately" after the war? Read it again. Nor did I say his whole family was at Auschwitz. I don't know if they were, or were not. I never met any of his family. I just listened to his stories. Actually, I think his family escaped in the early or mid 1950s. It may have been after/during the Hungarian revolution. I'm not sure what year that was.
Another little story he told me once... He said one of the things that amazed him, when he first came to this country, was how available, and cheap, chickens were. Where he came from in Europe (I don't recall which country, other than it was in the Communist bloc), chicken was a rare, special treat. He loved being able to have chicken for dinner any night he wanted to.
As far as being critical of "evil deeds"... Certainly, anyone has the right to be critical of any nation, or person, and Americans are self-critical all the time, but, we have an expression in this country: "The pot calling the kettle black." Sometimes it goes beyond that. Sometimes it's more like a child molester criticizing a parent for spanking a kid.
The child molester would be someone who is guilty of child molesting, wouldn’t he?
The holocaust and some other crimes are our (meaning the Germans’) shame in terms of national identity, and I’ve never denied that. I feel ashamed but not guilty, because guilt is something personal. Are you insinuating that I am guilty of these crimes, or that I am identifying myself with their authors, or that I am trying to belittle them, or that I should feel guilty because of my nationality?
And, just in case you aren’t understanding what I am doing with you (and am accused of anti-Americanism for): I’ve never criticised anybody for his government’s policies, unless they defend these policies. Then, and only then, I criticise them. Got it?
And next point, the chicken. I can guess what you try to get at, but I want you to say it less opaquely. Try again. Why is this thread littered by poultry?
Okay, fair enough. It's unjustified for me to be critical of individuals for sins of a nation's past.
The point is: Lots of nations have done things, throughout history, that may not have been loving, caring, generous, empathetic, and purely altruistic. Some things nations have done have been selfish, cruel, and deadly. That is the nature of man. There will never be a time free of conflict. It exists. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
Sometimes there is an obvious "right" side, and a "wrong" side. Other times.... not so much. I admit the U.S. has done, and continues to do, things which cause harm to some, in our own interests. Some were less justified than others. The goal is to minimize suffering. Sometimes that requires force to "suppress the oppressor," like it or not.
Sometimes in our past, we have done things for altruistic reasons. We have done things to "improve the condition of man," believe it or not. And probably more frequently than most.
Sometimes, inaction can generate as much criticism as action. We will be criticized by someone, somewhere, no mater what we do, or don't do. Since that is the case, why should I worry about what someone else says? Why should I care what you think? There are others who will take the opposite view. Seems to me, I should make up my own mind.
The U.S. is an easier target for the world than the French were for the Germans. It's easy to be critical of actions we take, especially if it involves military, or monetary, policies. The only way the U.S. can completely be mistake free, unable to generate criticism, is if the U.S. walled itself from the world and did nothing, ever. That is not possible. And, there would be critics even if we did nothing. So, criticise all you like. Were you in our shoes, as the sole world power, I doubt you would fare better. Your history certainly shows otherwise.
"I have a sneaking suspicion most former British colonies feel the same. The majority of former Spanish colonies are a F*cked up mess. "
The trouble with this assessment is that many of them are coming out of such mess just as you are about to go into it. What on Earth makes you think your "recession" is over? The only people who say you're coming out of it are the idiots who failed to see it coming - indeed, some of whom denied it was coming.
Capitalism is a long way from being dead but the phase of it which began with de-regulation in the 1970s has certainly started Cheyne-Stokes respiration. And the American predominance in this is already over. Your nation is being destroyed from within by it's financial sector and you have an idiot "libertarian" movement ready to go to the barricades to defend their right to do it! A much nastier version of capitalism is developing in China and India which will have eclipsed the US within the next 10 years or so.
Which brings me back to the comparative point I was making about the British. You are now where we were 50 or 60 years ago. No American alive today knows anything other than belonging to an unassailable super power which they have also been taught to believe is the most progressive institution ever. We were the same. Our parents and grand parents thought that those who fought against British oppression (read about the Mau Mau uprising if you still think we are so bloody wonderful) were ungrateful and those who criticised our hypocrisy and out-dated political system were simply jealous. Americans who whine about "Anti-Americanism" are just acting out the same tedious theatre.
Okay. You're right. The British are just a lousy bunch of muderous, bloodthirsty oppressors, and I will strive to never have anything to do with a single one of them, ever again. Savages.
Post new comment