 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's funny, because sometimes it seems that is what France wants to do... at least the Algerians will tell you that  . |
This comment actually reflects a serious matter. Like many of our criticisms toward US dominance, the criticism of the US cultural dominance partly comes from our nostalgy of empire, back when we were the dominant culture in the world.
The cultural arrogance of our past is a reality: we destroyed almost all local languages within France, and united a very diverse people (with many different ethnicities) under the banner of the Parisian culture and the Parisian language. We attempted to do the same in our colonies, and succeeded to a large extent.
(Actually, a common foreign misconception is the belief that France is ethnically homogenous - it's not, on the contrary, it's one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Europe, after the late Ottoman empire and Austria-Hungary)
This cultural arrogance is still alive today, as we restrict the re-appearance of regional languages.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
However, even though I oppose the Napoleon syndrome which seems to be driving Chirac's criticism of American cultural dominance, I agree that the overyhelmingness of American culture is an actual danger for cultural diversity in the world.
My comment would be the same if it was about Japanese, French or Indian culture btw.
Cultural diversity is IMO the proudest feat of mankind. That we managed to create viable cultures that are so different, so varied, is a homage to human creativity, and is also a vector for our creativity in the future.
Language is a great example. Some languages can express concepts that some others can't, or at least not naturally. I don't think there is any translation for the German word "gemühtlich" for example (something like a comfortable feeling of being at home). Language is what we base our thoughts and feelings upon; so with different languages, we can have thoughts and feelings that we couldn't have if the world was united under one language.
And language is but one part of culture. Thanks to cultural diversity, we can have widely different viewpoints, and can hope to progress from the confrontation of those (cultural exchange is actually the main reason why I enjoy 'poly so much, and why I post this way).
Should cultural diversity be destroyed -or terribly weakened- by the emergence of an amalgamous "world culture" based on the smallest common denominator, this fantastic tool of human creativity would be wrecked. And indeed, the yord "catastrophe" does apply.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Madison set up the US constitution to make sure no one group could impose its world view, values and views on the rest. He didn't have one state conquering all the others to do this in mind - he recognised that there were must more subtle ways of it happening.
Its shame that some people cant recognise that Madison's insight applies to the nations across the globe and not just to the varies groups within a state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
However, even though I oppose the Napoleon syndrome which seems to be driving Chirac's criticism of American cultural dominance, I agree that the overyhelmingness of American culture is an actual danger for cultural diversity in the world.
My comment would be the same if it was about Japanese, French or Indian culture btw.
Cultural diversity is IMO the proudest feat of mankind. That we managed to create viable cultures that are so different, so varied, is a homage to human creativity, and is also a vector for our creativity in the future.
Language is a great example. Some languages can express concepts that some others can't, or at least not naturally. I don't think there is any translation for the German word "gemühtlich" for example (something like a comfortable feeling of being at home). Language is what we base our thoughts and feelings upon; so with different languages, we can have thoughts and feelings that we couldn't have if the world was united under one language.
And language is but one part of culture. Thanks to cultural diversity, we can have widely different viewpoints, and can hope to progress from the confrontation of those (cultural exchange is actually the main reason why I enjoy 'poly so much, and why I post this way).
Should cultural diversity be destroyed -or terribly weakened- by the emergence of an amalgamous "world culture" based on the smallest common denominator, this fantastic tool of human creativity would be wrecked. And indeed, the yord "catastrophe" does apply. |
It's a catastrophe for you, maybe. Why the hell should we all be forced to stay "diverse" just to please your sense of aesthetics? Why do you get to prevent other people from choosing to adopt a different culture if they want to? If you like your culture, fine, you can practice it. And I can practice whichever one I want.
If, in the end, everyone ends up wanting to practice one culture, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
This reminds me of the debate on US federal funding for the arts with small-minded people argueing that the government shouldn't "spend money on art that no one wanted to pay for in the first place"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
However, even though I oppose the Napoleon syndrome which seems to be driving Chirac's criticism of American cultural dominance, I agree that the overyhelmingness of American culture is an actual danger for cultural diversity in the world.
My comment would be the same if it was about Japanese, French or Indian culture btw. |
Chirac is mixing up a lot of cultural issues and packaging it to the Napoleon Syndrome freaks inside and outside France. With regard to the English language, the reason it is used most often is because it is convenient to unify a people on some neutral ground. The advance of English in many areas has very little to do with whether the US supports it or not, contrary to what Chirac might say. Indeed, if the US were more culturally imperialistic -- if people felt threatened by the English language more than the languages of their countrymen -- then English would lose its utility as a neutral tongue.
For instance, in India it is a happy mistake of British imperialism that English is most often the common language as a second tongue. India has a lot of different kinds of ethnicities to pull together and English is a rather convenient neutral choice because it isn't indigenous.
If Ireland and the UK weren't in the EU, then English would be a convenient neutral choice as a sole language in which to do EU business. Indeed, it may be a happy compromise nonetheless (despite some French *****ing) precisely because the Brits are such Euroskeptics.
In both instances, it wouldn't matter if the convenient neutral language were English or Bantu. It wouldn't matter what the US does or doesn't do with regard to its cultural products. The US and Americans are so far removed from the considerations that lead people to adopt a neutral tongue as a second language that American influence is more of an abstraction rather than reality.
You would be much further ahead BAMing about the modern nation-state that requires such unity in order to function, and therefore stamps out diversity.
Last edited by DanS on 08-10-2004 at 22:04
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-10-2004 17:49
Culture victory here we come. 
|