Chirac warns of 'catastrophe' of world 'choked' by US values

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Many Americans in the backwoods do see "hollywood" as a foreign culture- if the Chirac speech were changed , with US replaced by Hollywood, some republican in Texas or Missouri could be giving it.

And Hollywood is really the target of Chirac's attacks (maybe with American pop-music, although I doubt it's in Chirac's concern, now that it isn't overwhelming in the particular French context anymore).

There is quite some American culture that is positively seen in France (like movies by Woody Allen, jazz, and much of your literature). But they don't belong to the massive entertainment you are exporting.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
America pwnz France!

Tsk. That's because you had a huge territory originally populated by small nations in the ancient era. If we could have expanded like you, our temples would beat the crap out of your theatres

[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.

[DinoDoc]

Quiet you! Go back to your evil Hollywood reeducation camp! We're on our way to choking the world with evil American values.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

There is quite some American culture that is positively seen in France (like movies by Woody Allen, jazz, and much of your literature). But they don't belong to the massive entertainment you are exporting.

Not to mention the comedy styling of comic genius Jerry Lewis.

But seriously this debate is as old as the rivalry of Great Britain vs. France, and since GB pwned France and GB's surrogate the US has now taken the mantle, France has a 200+ year history of being second (or worse) banana when it comes to global culture. The battle was long since lost before the US enterred the stage, but the US is now a convenient target of the US hating Chirac.

[Kuciwalker]

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?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Not to mention the comedy styling of comic genius Jerry Lewis.

But seriously this debate is as old as the rivalry of Great Britain vs. France, and since GB pwned France and GB's surrogate the US has now taken the mantle, France has a 200+ year history of being second (or worse) banana when it comes to global culture. The battle was long since lost before the US enterred the stage, but the US is now a convenient target of the US hating Chirac.

GB never pnwed France culturally.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Victorian Age GB empire pwned everyone.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


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?

Because if we end up in a world of one culture, then those who want to practice something different won't have the choice to?

I think society has a vested long term interest in preventing the absolute domination of one culture. Overspecialisation kills. Public funds for cultural events is worth more than a strict cost analysis. It's about keeping the "memepool" of the culture fresh.

The reason why this often takes an anti-american slant is because of the dominance of American culture in some aspects of life. I go to my local cinema and all I get is American movies. Why? Because the studios have the money to market extensively, to offer discounts, to do deals. Local producers just can't compete with that.

So thumbs up for cultural subsidies. So we can continue to let people pick and choose their cultures.

[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]

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.

[Japher]

Not to mention, DanS, that the US does not have an official language while most every other country does. How can one say that the US supports the spread of English when we print all our documents in about a billion different languages?!

[DanS]

Well, we don't print all our documents in a billion languages on a national level. At the local level, I know that I always hear "Press 1 for English, Press 2 for Spanish."

Edit: Well I'l be damned. I checked a couple of federal web sites and some do have Spanish versions...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo


give me an example of such coercion then!

Coercion by Rushkoff.

The marketing industry spends lots of money trying to figure out how people tick, in order to push just the right buttons to reduce the ability of people to make rational choices. It's all about psychological trickery.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dissident
aggressive marketing? please. people wouldn't go see the movies if they weren't halfway decent.

They aren't halfway decent and people go see them anyway.