Ship of Fools: De-Americanisation

Thread: De-Americanisation Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026427

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

A few weeks ago, when the USA showed itself incapable of managing its own finances, the Chinese called for the “de-Americanisation” of the world. Apart from incompetence in financial management, we now see the USA has been spying on communications in friendly nations, kidnapping citizens in other sovereign nations, and now bumping off wanted men in other countries. Given that this nation seems to have a penchant for invading other nations on the flimsiest of provocation and is the only country in the entire world to have used nuclear weapons in times of war, would shipmates agree with the Chinese position?

Assuming it were possible to de-Americanise the world, what would replace it? Would a Chinese-ised, Europeanised or Islamised world be a better place? Or would we be better off without superpowers?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Would a Chinese-ised... or Islamised world be a better place?

I can't see how these could in any way be better.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The thing is, we've all bought into the Americanisation of the world even while tut-tutting and denouncing it. Our dress, our manners, our eating habits, entertainment and much, much else besides have all been informed by American cultural influences whether we like it or not.

Personally, I think there's a lot there to like, as well as much we need to distance ourselves from.

Where the draw the line or how we can untangle any of this is beyond me.

We've all benefited from the Pax Americana, although there are plenty around the world who have lost out by it too.

China's one to watch.

Would a Sinofied world or an Islamicised world would be preferable to an Americanised one?

Can't say I find either option that attractive.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Gamaliel: Would a Sinofied world or an Islamicised world would be preferable to an Americanised one?

Can't say I find either option that attractive.

My preference would be a Brazilianized world, but I guess that's no surprise [Biased]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Gamaliel: Would a Sinofied world or an Islamicised world would be preferable to an Americanised one?

Can't say I find either option that attractive.
My preference would be a Brazilianized world, but I guess that's no surprise

Compulsory waxing? No thanks.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

How about an Anglicised world?

No, that's already been tried ...

How about an Africanised one?

Or a Welshified one. That would be fun. Lots of Eisteddfodau.

What's not to like?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Gamaliel: Or a Welshified one. That would be fun. Lots of Eisteddfodau.

What's not to like?

I think you might find out that convincing the whole world to pronounce this weird letter where you pronounce an l and a g and blow out all at the same time will prove to be a bit hard.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Finnish world. Then everyone could know the pleasures of having your own sauna and summer cabin and Finnish vodka.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

As a woman, I can't say I find an Islamified world -- at least one with shar'ia law -- at all appealing.

I've never been there, but an Icelandified world sounds pretty good from what I've read.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

On a more serious note, I could sense the diminishing influence of the USA quite strongly in Southern Africa. People are much more attuned there (economically, culturally, socially) to what's happening in São Paulo, Bombay or Shanghai than to New York or Washington.

I once heard Mr. Obama described as "the last President of when the USA was still the most influential country in the world". The next President will have a much different task than her predecessors. Whether that's a good or a bad thing, I guess only time will tell.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Americanization is the worst form of civilization ... you guessed it.

What's happening in São Paulo, Pretoria, Shanghai is the Americanization of the world. If America imploded tonight Americanization, Romanization, Babylonization, 'civilization' would continue.

The question is, can we be agents - in the subversive sense - of God's civilization in and to all and any including Islam?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: What's happening in São Paulo, Pretoria, Shanghai (...)

If you're looking for an example of a city in South-Africa where things are happening, you might want to pick Johannesburg. Pretoria is very laid-back [Biased]

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Finnish world. Then everyone could know the pleasures of having your own sauna and summer cabin and Finnish vodka.

I second that. I know that during the Cold War the term "Finlandisation" was not meant as a compliment, but today Finlandisation stands for a clean country, an egalitarian society (well, largely...), beautiful nature and an ecological mindset, lots of outdoor sports, an excellent education system, intelligent media (again, largely) and a (largely) commonsensical public discourse, and they even have decent restaurants in Helsinki now. My five years there were probably the happiest of my life, and the environment played a big role in that.

The real downside of Finlandisation? We'd all have to learn Finnish [Eek!]

-- but seriously, I don't like the idea of any nation being the cultural (or economic, for that matter) hegemon. Systems work best when they are smallish and consist of homogeneous elements. So if it's goodbye America, hopefully now we can all be ourselves again.

The information technology that underlies globalisation will favour the small, the solid, the nimble, the innovative... which leads us to Finland again... [Big Grin]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm just sure the Chinese had no ulterior motives in saying that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:

-- but seriously, I don't like the idea of any nation being the cultural (or economic, for that matter) hegemon. Systems work best when they are smallish and consist of homogeneous elements. So if it's goodbye America, hopefully now we can all be ourselves again.

The information technology that underlies globalisation will favour the small, the solid, the nimble, the innovative... which leads us to Finland again...

Nice thought. But not having a common base for trade would be disastrous to our already fragile economies.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, we've all bought into the Americanisation of the world even while tut-tutting and denouncing it. Our dress, our manners, our eating habits, entertainment and much, much else besides have all been informed by American cultural influences whether we like it or not.

Equally, who informed American culture in the first place? Those White (let's not play definitions; it's fashionable to be a quarter Native American...) Anglo-Saxon (actually generic North-European) Protestants (other Judeo-Christians count too) have a lot to answer for. Yes, it's not perfect — what culture is? — but enough of it is very closely related to our own that most others would be very alien indeed by comparison. And if anything, the USA bears more relation to the freedom that underlay the Holy Roman Empire than any of its successors, who have comprehensively failed to exorcise the ghost of Napoleon.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

AIUI large parts of Africa are becoming Sinified already. Not culturally, but large infrastructure projects in Africa are increasingly being funded and carried out by Chinese enterprises.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The question is, can we be agents - in the subversive sense - of God's civilization in and to all and any including Islam?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Re the topic title.

Sounds like a plan. Would it mean less invasions? Less drones? Less dead people? Okay, maybe not. No hope for the human race. Another idiot country that thinks it has the patent on freedom and <name some national quality here> will come along. Is it the Chinese? You folks seem to think so. I don't know. Their ideas of freedom seems about as good.

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
we now see the USA has been spying on communications in friendly nations, kidnapping citizens in other sovereign nations, and now bumping off wanted men in other countries.

Don't forget killing it's own citizens with drones and failing to protect vulnerable diplomats from unnecessary death.

As to the OP, seems all your other "options" have had many more centuries to figure it out than the US has. Only a couple centuries in I say we stick with it a bit longer, fatally flawed as it is.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Various cultures have had ascendency over the years. Greek, Roman, British, American etc.

I suspect the trend of the rise of Asian culture and world influence will continue as the influence of USA declines.

This will not diminish the American population; in the same way British people are not marginalised; but simply reflect the shift of the political and economic influence of the nations.

Just pray Australia never gets ascendancy- She'll be right Bruce.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Pererin--

The "freedom that underlay the Holy Roman Empire"???

Not a great example of freedom, AFAIK.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

And who is it that has a navy presence around the world? Used to be said the sun never sets on the British empire. Now the sun never sets on an American warship.

Our apologies for how our politicians have been acting, though. Still, we have been able to step back from the brink. Just pray we never go over that cliff in the near future.

I am sure the Japanese, the Philippines, Taiwan, the Vietnamese are all looking forward to the Sinolization of the world.

Interesting how China is using its investments in the United States to fund its projects in Africa.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

I don't think South Africa has ever been particularly Americanised.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Another idiot country that thinks it has the patent on freedom and <name some national quality here> will come along. Is it the Chinese?

I've never particularly got the impression that Chinese foreign policy is intended to spread the cause of freedom or any other ideological virtue around the world.

Chinese foreign policy seems to me to have two objectives: 1. stability (so support for North Korea, even though even the Politburo regards their leadership as a bunch of nutjobs, because a war on the peninsula would destabilise China), and 2. make as much money for China as possible.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

It's easy to look at the proliforation of M¢Donald$ or $tar*ucks on every street corner as Americanisation. But I don't think it is.

Multinational companies expanding is not Americanisation. I see the influence of American politics on the politics of other countries has diminished since the start of the worldwide recession. Many countries use that as America's fault. Again I'd put the blame on multinationals who are operating, as far at it is possible, outside the ability of governments, including that of the USA, to stop them doing what they want.

If we are to stem the rise of multi-national led globalisation we need to tackle it Internationally. The countries with the largest markets, including the USA and China would have to be involved in this. Which is why I consider China's comments unhelpful.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Some time ago, I read John Bagot Glubb's (Glubb Pasha, for those who may identify that name) history of the Arab empire of the 700-1100 era.

He summarised with the idea that empires have a natural life-span, lasting, on average, about 250 years. There were reasonably-convincing dates for the Arabs, for instance, and arguable approximations for the Spanish and British empires. In the latter case, he took the starting date at 1713, with the formal British acquisition of Madras at the Treaty of Utrecht, leading inevitably to the formal destruction of the Empire in the 1950's and 60's.

I'm sure that, say, the Persian empire which was defeated by Alexander, or the Dutch trading empire more recently, had similar lifespans.

None of this means that the people of any of those empires were more depraved before or after the events, just that they lost the will to control an empire.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think it's silly to extrapolate a gargantuan shift in the world order from a few turbulent years in one part of the US government.

Whether British teenagers emulate American rappers or Chinese pop-stars is inconsequential to me, at any rate. But I rather doubt these kids are thinking "Hey, those Republican tea-party prats are co-opting democracy—let's listen to Brazilian dance music instead of rap."

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I've never particularly got the impression that Chinese foreign policy is intended to spread the cause of freedom or any other ideological virtue around the world.

Chinese foreign policy seems to me to have two objectives: 1. stability (so support for North Korea, even though even the Politburo regards their leadership as a bunch of nutjobs, because a war on the peninsula would destabilise China), and 2. make as much money for China as possible.

Sounds like the American foreign policy. Except they reverse the order. Money is first. America doesn't spread freedom. It spreads business.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I don't think South Africa has ever been particularly Americanised.

We're working on it right now with prosperity gospel Pentecostalism. Give us a few decades.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Zach wrote:

quote:
I think it's silly to extrapolate a gargantuan shift in the world order from a few turbulent years in one part of the US government.

Reminds me of an op-ed I once read by some British journalist, one of those 1990s "EU-Is-The-Future" guys, during the Clinton impeachment thing.

He ended by saying that with the American government clearly on the ropes because pf the impeachment, the world would now be looking to Europe for leadership.

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

The americanization I most resent in England is their hallowe'en; which encourages kids to beg, or to demand sweets with menaces. Nevertheless I prefer friendship with USA to subservience to the EU.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

But Halloween has been in Canada just as long as it has been in the US.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Even Shakespeare was susceptible to Americanization. He writes about the practice of begging on Hallowmas in The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which will either make British snobs feel better about Hallowe'en, or make them feel worse about Billy Shakes.

[ 04. November 2013, 03:09: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Soul Cakes are not an American innovation, I think you'll find. Souling long predates the European "discovery" of the Americas.

[ 04. November 2013, 04:21: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
would shipmates agree with the Chinese position?

At least the American government gets into trouble with its citizens for all the misdemeanours that you list. Chinese citizens aren't able to complain about invasions of privacy, for instance. I suspect that the Chinese public position regarding non-intervention is a fairly cynically held one, and would on the face of it include standing idly by while Yugoslavia or Rwanda descended into genocide. Swapping American for Chinese influences would be a case of jumping from the frying pan to the fire. We would have better food on balance but worse human rights.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I keep thinking that America is where the U.K. was in the Suez Crisis in the fifties. It's about to realize it no longer can afford an empire. It remains to be seen if it can disentangle itself from the Military Industrial Complex and scale back without breaking the government.

As unpleasant as the Pax Americana may have struck other countries, there are a number of countries that are going to have to make new arrangements for self defense if they have been relying on the U.S.

Dying empires often cast a long cultural shadow. It may be harder to escape the shadow of Hollywood then to escape the shadow of the US military.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As unpleasant as the Pax Americana may have struck other countries, there are a number of countries that are going to have to make new arrangements for self defense if they have been relying on the U.S.

But defend themselves from whom?

As has been shown (repeatedly), a modern high-tech superpower is more-or-less powerless against even shambolic and poorly-armed but highly-motivated irregular forces.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Powerless seems an exaggeration. Al Qaeda seems very degraded in its capacity to conduct terrorism compared with 10 years ago. "Not completely invulnerable" seems more accurate than "powerless".

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Powerless seems an exaggeration. Al Qaeda seems very degraded in its capacity to conduct terrorism compared with 10 years ago. "Not completely invulnerable" seems more accurate than "powerless".

No one's suggesting that Al Qaeda can 'win' in any meaningful sense of the word. But neither can the USA. Of the main areas of US involvement in the last two decades, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are all, essentially, lost to Islamic extremists, Syria is heading that way, and Pakistan likewise.

Surprisingly, one organisation which has made any territorial expansion against 'the forces of darkness' is the EU, successfully dragging in former communist bloc countries and providing a whole field of carrots to accession countries - all without an effective army (Yes, NATO and the EU have considerable overlap, but we didn't have to put tanks on the lawn in anywhere except Kosovo.)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Sounds like the American foreign policy. Except they reverse the order. Money is first. America doesn't spread freedom. It spreads business.

Like most Australians of my generation, the one before and most of those after, it's very hard to forget the way in which the US came to our assistance in early May 1942 at the Battle of the Coral Sea. Without that great victory, at a time when Churchill had all but written us off, not only would the Aust Army not have defeated the Japanese at the Battle of Milne Bay 4 months later, but quite likely there would have been an Axis invasion of Nth Queensland. That was not spreading business, that was invaluable assistance to a very much junior ally.

Call it rose-tinted glasses, but even those of us on the left view current events bear that in mind. OK, we disapprove what happened in Vietnam and Iraq and aren't exactly happy with the way things have turned out in Afghanistan, but overall, we still look at the Us as a friend who sometimes makes mistakes. And sometimes we go along with those mistakes.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Sounds like the American foreign policy. Except they reverse the order. Money is first. America doesn't spread freedom. It spreads business.
Like most Australians of my generation, the one before and most of those after, it's very hard to forget the way in which the US came to our assistance in early May 1942 at the Battle of the Coral Sea. Without that great victory, at a time when Churchill had all but written us off, not only would the Aust Army not have defeated the Japanese at the Battle of Milne Bay 4 months later, but quite likely there would have been an Axis invasion of Nth Queensland. That was not spreading business, that was invaluable assistance to a very much junior ally.

Call it rose-tinted glasses, but even those of us on the left view current events bear that in mind. OK, we disapprove what happened in Vietnam and Iraq and aren't exactly happy with the way things have turned out in Afghanistan, but overall, we still look at the Us as a friend who sometimes makes mistakes. And sometimes we go along with those mistakes.

The planned Japanese invasion of Australia is a lie, concocted for the purpose of boosting enlistments and perpetuated by some elements after the war as a part of the national mythology. The "help" from the USA only came because Australia was a convenient base from which to stage their campaign to take back what they really wanted - the Philippines - but I'm sure that the business opportunities were also in mind well before Japan surrendered.

The Japanese high command refused to grant any permission to plan out a couple of proposals to invade Australia suggested by field-grade officers. The strategy they did adopt was to isolate Australia by cutting off supply lines to the east, the only purpose of this was to deny the USA a base to move back into SE Asia towards the Philippines.

As for "friendship" with either America or China, both would generally be considered to be rather sado-masochistic relationships. This is why those two empires don't get along too well, both are generally used to being on top.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The more I see of China, with its immense industry, drift to the cities and vast military forces the more it resembles America in the 1950's. All that differs is that in China the government owns business whereas in the USA it is the other way round.

In short, China is "Americanising China", albeit with Chinese people acting under government compulsion rather than Americans under economic necessity.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

We would probably also have to talk about legitimate Japanese concerns about American expansionism in the Pacific. I've never understood how it is "America = good" and "Japan = bad" except for the 30-40 year gap in time when we consider the Philippines and Manchuria. The post modern view being that America and Japan had a lot in common in the first half of the 20th century in terms of their international conduct. Though I think the USA invaded more countries in total count than Japan. Not sure which killed more people.

[ 04. November 2013, 12:00: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
no prophet: I've never understood how it is "America = good" and "Japan = bad" except for the 30-40 year gap in time when we consider the Philippines and Manchuria.

The Dutch position on this is rather complex, because for a while the Japanese sphere also included Indonesia. We usually don't talk very loud about this though, because this would also cast the spotlight on what the Dutch themselves have done in Indonesia a couple of years later.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Soul Cakes are not an American innovation, I think you'll find. Souling long predates the European "discovery" of the Americas.

Yeah... that was pretty much my point.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I don't think South Africa has ever been particularly Americanised.
We're working on it right now with prosperity gospel Pentecostalism. Give us a few decades.

I though Hillsong was doing a good trade in that in South Africa, and you can't blame America for them. They're Aussies!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
seekingsister: I though Hillsong was doing a good trade in that in South Africa, and you can't blame America for them. They're Aussies!

I'm afraid that the (Brazilian) Universal Church of the Kingdom of God is doing very well in South Africa too.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, we've all bought into the Americanisation of the world even while tut-tutting and denouncing it. Our dress, our manners, our eating habits, entertainment and much, much else besides have all been informed by American cultural influences whether we like it or not.

What I find interesting is how much African-American culture specifically has been absorbed throughout the world. Amy Winehouse and Adele would not have existed without Nina Simone and Aretha Franklin, for example. The two largest jazz festivals in the world are in Switzerland and Canada.

Maya Angelou wrote in one of her biographies how shocked she and the all-black cast of "Porgy and Bess" were when they travelled to Europe in the 1950s and were treated like A-listers, while in the US they were entering theaters through the backdoor.

People seem to find these elements of American culture a lot less offensive, somehow, than the mainstream sort of movies/TV/pop music.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, we've all bought into the Americanisation of the world even while tut-tutting and denouncing it. Our dress, our manners, our eating habits, entertainment and much, much else besides have all been informed by American cultural influences whether we like it or not.

What I find interesting is how much African-American culture specifically has been absorbed throughout the world. Amy Winehouse and Adele would not have existed without Nina Simone and Aretha Franklin, for example. The two largest jazz festivals in the world are in Switzerland and Canada.

Maya Angelou wrote in one of her biographies how shocked she and the all-black cast of "Porgy and Bess" were when they travelled to Europe in the 1950s and were treated like A-listers, while in the US they were entering theaters through the backdoor.

People seem to find these elements of American culture a lot less offensive, somehow, than the mainstream sort of movies/TV/pop music.

Two words. Spice Girls. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Two words. Spice Girls.

It's gotten worse since then: One Direction [Eek!]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Two words. Spice Girls.
It's gotten worse since then: One Direction

Pretty much. Just to clarify my position here, I am against any form of American exceptionalism. The US is neither exceptionally good, nor exceptionally bad, though its size and power does give it more opportunity to behave in the same self-interested manner every country can he relied upon to adopt.

On these threads people start talking a lot of wank about the evils of American culture, as if their own cultures were any better. And, let's be real here. If y'all didn't like American pop culture, y'all wouldn't buy it, would you?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
We would probably also have to talk about legitimate Japanese concerns about American expansionism in the Pacific.

Japan's attitude toward American expansionism seemed to waver(and vice versa, of course). In 1905, they were getting the high-fives from Teddy Roosevelt to annex Korea(against Russian claims), in exchange for agreesing to let the Yanks go unchallenged in the Philippines.

Taft-Katsura Agreement

quote:
We would probably also have to talk about legitimate Japanese concerns about American expansionism in the Pacific. I've never understood how it is "America = good" and "Japan = bad" except for the 30-40 year gap in time when we consider the Philippines and Manchuria.

I've actually read essays by left-wing Korean historians, who use the term "anti-American" as an insult when referring to the activities of pro-Japanese collaborators in the World War II era, but then switch to using "PRO-American" as an insult, when describing the same people during the postwar era, when those people took positions with the right-wing, American backed regimes.

And, for what it's worth, it is credibly recorded that, immediatley following World War II, Kim Il Sing of North Korea gave a speech to assembled foreign dignitaries, in which he thanked the US, among others, for helping to defeat the Japanese. As far as is known, the last time he ever said anything good about the Americans.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Two words. Spice Girls.

Funny what does and does not become a symbol of evil globalization. Being American certainly seems to be a strike against any given item.

Mickey Mouse, of course, is the recognized symbol of diabolical global capitalism, but as far as I can tell, Harry Potter gets a free pass, even though I'm pretty sure his brand has raked in far more cash these last fifteen years than Mickey has, and he's as much of a hegemonic imposition on non-western cultures as Mickey is.

And never mind the non-west: if I were BRITISH, I think I'd be offended by Harry Potter. I've only seen the first film, but I remember thinking it was like an spisode of Bewitched overlaid with a Hollywood scriptwriter's idea of Merry Old England.

[Bewitched: Low brow American sitcom from the 60s, about a beautiful suburban witch and her hapless husband.]

[ 04. November 2013, 14:14: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Y'all should also come to terms with the fact that American culture is more or less European. American capitalism does little more than spew your own crap back in your face.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Y'all should also come to terms with the fact that American culture is more or less European.

'fraid I got to agree with Zach on this one. We may nitpick about our differences, but I'm not sure if most non-European countries would see them as significant.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The perspective of American being in essence European is probably true, except that there aspects of Euro culture frozen in time, whereas Europe has left it behind. The ancestor to both current American culture and current European culture is a old European culture, of centuries and years ago, with substantial divergence. I note this as a Canadian, where, as children of a common parentage, we have many similarities to Americans, but we have both USAians and Cdains left behind that parentage and grown in divergent ways. Which is a reason that Canadians are rather quick to clarify when abroad that we aren't Americans.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

And never mind the non-west: if I were BRITISH, I think I'd be offended by Harry Potter. I've only seen the first film, but I remember thinking it was like an spisode of Bewitched overlaid with a Hollywood scriptwriter's idea of Merry Old England.

Harry Potter has the same "only our nation can save the world" features of most American pop culture - and I say that as a fan of the books.

I did wonder why the Ministry of Magic wouldn't just call up their friends at the US Magic Department and sort something out.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Erm, I feel like I should point here that the Harry Potter series was not written by an American but by a Brit.

(Also, as someone who reads a deal of fantasy fiction, saving the world is a super-common trope, regardless of the nationality of the author. Quite over-used, I think but it's an easy way to raise the stakes.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I've never understood how it is "America = good" and "Japan = bad" except for the 30-40 year gap in time when we consider the Philippines and Manchuria. The post modern view being that America and Japan had a lot in common in the first half of the 20th century in terms of their international conduct. Though I think the USA invaded more countries in total count than Japan. Not sure which killed more people.

If one is to asses good and evil, one should view the entire picture. But it is difficult to erase perspective. For example, ask a Filipino over 70 who was worse. Ask an American Black person, perhaps a different response. If one counts atrocities, Japan rates with Germany and Russia, save for numbers.
Cultures destroyed? People killed? Resources plundered? Chaos begun. America, Britain, China, Rome,.....
From my perspective, it doesn't seem to matter who is boss, the whip scars the back, all the same.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Soul Cakes are not an American innovation, I think you'll find. Souling long predates the European "discovery" of the Americas.
Yeah... that was pretty much my point.

Sorry; missed that.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Soul Cakes are not an American innovation, I think you'll find. Souling long predates the European "discovery" of the Americas.
Yeah... that was pretty much my point.
Sorry; missed that.

It happens. [Biased]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Gwai wrote:

quote:
Erm, I feel like I should point here that the Harry Potter series was not written by an American but by a Brit.

Yes, that was my original point. The Potter franchise rules the world, but doesn't seem to attarct the kind of animosity that American pop culture does.

Though I could also observe that, even confining ourselves to American cultural products, they don't all attract an equal share of animosity. This picture I posted earlier uses Mickey Mouse as its stand-in for western imperialism, not Bugs Bunny, and in fact I don't think I've ever seen Bugs Bunny used that way, even though Warner Bros. is as big if not bigger than Disney(and that's not even talking about Time Warner).

[ 04. November 2013, 20:00: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Fair enough re Potter.

I think Potter isn't used as a symbol of Britain because Britain has so many symbols. Also, Disney has really made itself disliked by doing things like getting copyright extended. (Not that the copyright issue particularly affects overseas, but other things do.)

Also, I hear Mickey Mouse and McDonalds used to symbolize simplification, unhealthy tacky American culture, and making everything the same. For all its flaws, I don't think those apply to Bugs (or Time-Warner) as much. Besides old Bugs Bunny was a good cartoon! [Biased]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Whats ended seems to be overwhelming US economic domination, which was more or less a defining characteristic of the 20th century. US military domination might be going to end sometime but its nowhere near it yet (and that lag is typical of the fate of many past empires, including Spain and Britain)

But American culuture is very much one variant or rather many variants of Western European culture (Anglo subtype). The worldwide spread of American-style music, clothes, food, films and so on has as many roots in Italy and Germany and France as it does in the USA - or Britain.

And the really distinctive contribution of the Americas to world popular culture, the stuff that could never have come straight from Europe, is overwhelmingly Black American culture. (With a hefty influence from the Caribbean) And who, other than a few bigots with tin ears, really resents that?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

FWIW, I've long thought that my gov't (US) should:

--Pull back most of our reach from the rest of the world.

--Remove troops from any place where that doesn't a) affect a country that can't sufficiently protect itself; and b) seriously affect our own safety.

--Forgive all debts that poor countries owe us.

--Be absolutely open that the USA's self interest is almost always a huge chunk of anything we do.

--Stop meddling in the internal politics of other countries, including influencing who leads those countries.-Only help institute democracy in another country when they specifically ask for help.

--Only help institute democracy in another country when they specifically ask for help.

--Revisit all this in 50 years or so. That will make it easier to sell to our gov't and citizens.

Beyond that: we can't control big business any more than you can. If you don't want American products, don't buy them!!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From my perspective, it doesn't seem to matter who is boss, the whip scars the back, all the same.

It is easy to say that when faced with the complexity of assessing the situation, but of course one can still discern important differences. Life under Stalin compared with life in the USA was not really 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. As imperfect as US democracy is, I would still prefer that to the Chinese non-version. I would prefer US justice, warts-and-all, to Chinese courts in which the government seems supreme. And so on.

(On the other hand I'd prefer Szechuan chicken stir-fry to a bigmac.)

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
Nevertheless I prefer friendship with USA to subservience to the EU.

Ha ha, very good! Where did you get that; The Sun or the Daily Mail?

The UK is not subservient to the EU. It is part of it. The EU is a federation of nation states, of which the UK is just one. We have formal routes to influence policy in return for abiding by the decisions of the majority. Are we "subservient" to the elected parliament in Westminster. We're just one voice in a democratic endeavour.

As for "friendship" with the USA, well they seem to pick their "friends" very carefully. We have no influence over what sacrifices they will demand for that "friendship" to stay in place.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The thread has moved on TGB, but I don't think the evidence supports either of your conjectures.

What is interesting is the anti-Americanism of the right and the extreme left in the UK. The Centre and moderate left does not seem to mind at all, but think of your Thomas the Tank books - the general nastiness towards the US, and US practices, displayed there is quite unexpected. WHen you move to more serious matters, that strand continues.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... but think of your Thomas the Tank books - the general nastiness towards the US, and US practices, displayed there is quite unexpected. ...

What on earth has Thomas the Tank Engine got to do with this?

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

Yes, that's weird. There must be some new editions out. The only nastiness in the books I used to read to my kids was directed at diesel engines.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Yes, that's weird. There must be some new editions out. The only nastiness in the books I used to read to my kids was directed at diesel engines.

I cannot now recall which volume, but the same sort of attack is made upon a US loco which somehow finds its way to the Island of Sodor.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Those who forget their history - and one might also say their ideals - are condemned to repeat it.

I seem to remember that in Orwell's "1984" the Gettysburg address, from which the above is its best known excerpt, would have been translated simply as thoughtcrime.

We need to be alert to the misapplication of good principle everywhere. Government administrations dilute and vandalise human freedoms for their own reasons. It's what they do, everywhere.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Erm, I feel like I should point here that the Harry Potter series was not written by an American but by a Brit.

Who thought HP was American?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Re. Thomas books: the locomotive in question is called "Hank" - to be fair, he dos not appear in the "proper" railway books but only in the TV spinoff ... and may even have been included because the programmes were marketed in America.

I think the books are far more "anti-modern" than "anti-American" (and the Great Western Railway doesn't get off lightly either!)

[ 05. November 2013, 09:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Yes, that's weird. There must be some new editions out. The only nastiness in the books I used to read to my kids was directed at diesel engines.
I cannot now recall which volume, but the same sort of attack is made upon a US loco which somehow finds its way to the Island of Sodor.

I expect they were concerned that an engine built to a far larger loading gauge would get stuck in their tunnels and under their bridges, and that would never do. Also, most American engines are very untidy with a snakes' honeymoon of pipes and gubbins bolted onto the exterior.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Not just the appearance, but also the much softer springing to accommodate the track conditions found in the US - and here for that matter. The loco talks of rocking and rolling. The Fat Controller's engines disapprove of the language and behaviour.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
(and the Great Western Railway doesn't get off lightly either!)

never trust domeless engines..... They were just jealous.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Erm, I feel like I should point here that the Harry Potter series was not written by an American but by a Brit.

Who thought HP was American?

I think someone might have misunderstood my post that read, in part...

quote:
And never mind the non-west: if I were BRITISH, I think I'd be offended by Harry Potter. I've only seen the first film, but I remember thinking it was like an spisode of Bewitched overlaid with a Hollywood scriptwriter's idea of Merry Old England.

My initial point was that it was an example of a non-American cultural product dominating the global market. The paragraph quoted above was just an afterthought, musing on how much it does resemble typical American pop culture.

[ 05. November 2013, 12:25: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Didn't Voldemort cast a Turnius-Americanus-Subitus spell over Harry once?

(PS Everybody knows that Harry Potter is Dutch.)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0