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

[Kuciwalker]

He was talking about Dissident.

[DanS]

Re Pennsylvania Dutch, here's what a random web site says about it...

Most Amish are trilingual. They speak a dialect of German called Pennsylvania Dutch at home; they use High German at their worship services; and they learn English at school. They speak English when they deal with anyone who is not Amish. They pronounce Amish with a broad "a" (Ah-mish).

The Amish are a private people who believe God has kept them together despite pressure to change from the modern world. They are not perfect, but they are a strong example of a community that supports and cares for its members. They are a people apart; they are also a people together.

The site says they speak High German, but I doubt any German nowadays could understand their form of it. My sister-in-law who is German couldn't understand them.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
He was talking about Dissident.

Realized it afterwards. This post has been misunderstood twice so far (by Geronimo too).

[DanS]

Doesn't France have more important things to do, like devising ways to violate sanctions?

To the French, that's like walking and chewing gum at the same time.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Which just goes to show that even in Quebec, people prefer American music and films to local ones. So?

You should read the whole thread. Your failure to acknowledge that capitalism has such a way to auto-congratulate itself in a way that an entire culture can be built around 'circular' values (people pay for good stuff, but good stuff is defined by what people pay for) shows that you miss the mark.

Market tends towards uniformization, to a point that advertising and marketing become integral part of a culture. Governments should work against that because other values defended by founding principles can't survive adequately in a laissez-faire market.

And though this is a discussion about art more than about politic, it is rather obvious that the techniques behind Hollywood movies are directly aimed at pleasing a viewer with moral and psychological tricks, and are miles away from encouraging free thinking, artistic research and the likes.

Modern 'Aufklarung' democracies require an educated people to function properly, who understands the values behind the Social Contract. When a powerful financial interest collides with basic principles, and tries to circumvent any effort in this direction to substitute it for its own interest, it's time for some regulation.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Realized it afterwards. This post has been misunderstood twice so far (by Geronimo too).

for the record I understood the post I just pointed out that I didn't agree that the Quebecois flip flop on everything

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Ah, so you're just complaining that because so few people want what you want that no one even bothers to supply, others must be compelled to purchase what you want in order to create enough demand for it to be economical.

No, when an oligopoly becomes so strong and stuck up that people can't even want something because of a lack of exposure, then the government should act to make a particular market more free-flowing.

Anti-trust legislation does exist and I doubt that you disagree with it. Culture can be administered with similar intents in mind but the government should give itself broader freedom in this regard, because culture can be determined not only by who sells it but also by more larger patterns of genre, origin, etc.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by DanS
Re Pennsylvania Dutch, here's what a random web site says about it...



The site says they speak High German, but I doubt any German nowadays could understand their form of it. My sister-in-law who is German couldn't understand them.

Don't most Germans speak the other variety of German (err, Low German?) and the differences between the two dialects are such that mutual comprehension is iffy? Add on hundreds of years of Amish self-seperation and they might as well be speaking an entirely different Germanic language.

[Moral Hazard]

Anti-Trust Culture? Interesting. You can't break up a monopoly for having a supieror product or because of historical accident. You would have to prove anti-competitive measure by the monopoly culture

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


You should read the whole thread. Your failure to acknowledge that capitalism has such a way to auto-congratulate itself in a way that an entire culture can be built around 'circular' values (people pay for good stuff, but good stuff is defined by what people pay for) shows that you miss the mark.

As opposed to your weird pseudo socialist 'circular' values in which local people want good stuff which is defined by what local people want? Both 'circular' reasonings appear to be equivalent. I define good stuff as that which people are willing to pay for with money or pay for by other means. How is that definition more circular than your definition that good stuff is what people locally produce?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Market tends towards uniformization, to a point that advertising and marketing become integral part of a culture. Governments should work against that because other values defended by founding principles can't survive adequately in a laissez-faire market.

It is strange then that there seems to be a wider and wider variety of things to buy all of the time.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And though this is a discussion about art more than about politic, it is rather obvious that the techniques behind Hollywood movies are directly aimed at pleasing a viewer with moral and psychological tricks, and are miles away from encouraging free thinking, artistic research and the likes.

So what? locally produced movies protected by government mandate from competition would likewise be miles away from encouraging free thinking, artistic research and the likes. Isn't it strange that the Oscars always seem to reward artistic innovation over popularity? Perhaps the Hollywood elite actually value these things even more than does the general public.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Modern 'Aufklarung' democracies require an educated people to function properly, who understands the values behind the Social Contract. When a powerful financial interest collides with basic principles, and tries to circumvent any effort in this direction to substitute it for its own interest, it's time for some regulation.

Then obviously it is not time for regulation!

[Combat Ingrid]

It seems to me that those who are the most against "American cultural hegemony" are those who have the least confidence in their own culture. Why would they otherwise be afraid of foreign culture?

I watch American movies, eat Indian, Italian and Mexican food, drink Irish beer and Finnish vodka and so on. Still I define myself and my culture as Swedish. Or rather as "Norrlänning" (Northerner/coming from northern Sweden). The choice to adopt parts of foreign cultures as your own is NOT the same to me as loosing your own culture. Culture is dynamic and you just enrich it. If your culture is so useless it can't survive some foreign influences, well good riddance!

As for subsidising culture, I think it's a good thing if it aims to help people "get started" in making movies, music etc. Gives the masses a chance the be exposed to new, interesting stuff that the big companies don't provide (yet). It's a bad thing if it's just used to preserve an obsolete, stagnating culture.
(like the French)

[Imran Siddiqui]

techniques behind Hollywood movies are directly aimed at pleasing a viewer with moral and psychological tricks, and are miles away from encouraging free thinking, artistic research and the likes.

I see we've never seen a Hitchcock movie. The 'thinking' movies are mostly out of vogue (though they still exist) because people in the US want to go to the movies to have fun, not think too much, they do that in their jobs.

As for the market tending towards uniformity... that must be why I only eat burgers every day... oh wait, I had Chinese the other night, and Pizza before that, and Mexican last week. Vietnamese a few weeks ago. Perhaps I'll go for Thai, and if I liked Indian, I could get it any time I wanted. All within driving distance. That's not mentioning Japanese (been a while since I've been there), Morroccan and Ethopian foods I can get at any time.

What uniformity?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You should read the whole thread. Your failure to acknowledge that capitalism has such a way to auto-congratulate itself in a way that an entire culture can be built around 'circular' values (people pay for good stuff, but good stuff is defined by what people pay for) shows that you miss the mark.

The only objective sense of 'good' is 'what most people want'. The fact that what most people consider good and what is "objectively" are the same should be obvious from this. People don't buy decide things are good because other people think they are good (well, actually they do, but hey, it's their choice), they buy what they enjoy.

You're the one that missed the mark. There's no circularity, beyond some people's tendency to want to join the bandwagon, which is their choice.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
No, when an oligopoly becomes so strong and stuck up that people can't even want something because of a lack of exposure, then the government should act to make a particular market more free-flowing.

Of course you can want it. Obviously you haven't been afflicted by this, otherwise you wouldn't think there was a problem (and there wouldn't be). So that's clearly not the case. In addition, by your logic the government must fund exposure to each and every conceivable form of culture possible, so that everyone has a full range to choose from. That's just stupid. If you really want to look for something else, there's plenty of stuff on the web, or you can even use your own money - imagine that, not being able to use someone else's money - to go and find it.

It's like complaining that there aren't any good games in a particular genre because no one buys that type of game, and then demanding that the government fund development of that type of game and restrict the development of other types.

Anti-trust legislation does exist and I doubt that you disagree with it. Culture can be administered with similar intents in mind but the government should give itself broader freedom in this regard, because culture can be determined not only by who sells it but also by more larger patterns of genre, origin, etc.

The problem isn't a monopoly, the problem is no one cares about your stupid culture! They're all happy to adopt ours! It's not our fault your own people don't like your culture as much as they like ours, it's yours. Why the hell should the government prop up anything that is failing for the sole reason that no one wants what it's selling?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
It seems to me that those who are the most against "American cultural hegemony" are those who have the least confidence in their own culture. Why would they otherwise be afraid of foreign culture?

I watch American movies, eat Indian, Italian and Mexican food, drink Irish beer and Finnish vodka and so on. Still I define myself and my culture as Swedish. Or rather as "Norrlänning" (Northerner/coming from northern Sweden). The choice to adopt parts of foreign cultures as your own is NOT the same to me as loosing your own culture. Culture is dynamic and you just enrich it. If your culture is so useless it can't survive some foreign influences, well good riddance!

As for subsidising culture, I think it's a good thing if it aims to help people "get started" in making movies, music etc. Gives the masses a chance the be exposed to new, interesting stuff that the big companies don't provide (yet). It's a bad thing if it's just used to preserve an obsolete, stagnating culture.