(no subject)
I wonder when the world will realize that culture is not a necessarily positive thing, not something to be honored and preserved. Maybe recorded, but not preserved. I heard a student talking about the problem that if we modernize the medicine and economies in starving African countries, their culture will probably start to fade. So what! Part of their culture is clitoradectomy and faith-healing! These things aren't good, least of all not just because they are "culture." Even more shocking was the basic misunderstanding of what culture is and why it has value, when the same student said, referring to Burma, "They have so much more culture than us. When I look at the states, I just see the homogenization of culture."
Slow down. The homogenization of culture in the US? Maybe the radio and television commericals might give one that impression, but the fact is, we have access to MORE art than any civilization in the history of our planet. Every kind of music that we know about can be found in a record store down the street. Meanwhile a poor community in Africa, to this kids, seems to have more culture, because people are wearing colorful clothes and doing funny dances! So their culture must be superior to ours!
I don't know what it is, maybe an over-reaction to imperialism, but to assume that just because a community is ENTIRELY INSULAR and has no outside influences, it is somehow MORE CULTURED than another, is insanity. I don't think these people realize though, that the danger of colonization was not exporting new books and ideas to the people. No, that's always a good thing. The danger is that in colonization and imperialism, we strip other peoples of their freedoms, by either claiming their country as our own, denying them food to convince them to convert (I'm looking at you, history's missionaries), or other practices of hegemony among a people with less power.
It is not imperialism to sell a Chinese book to a South American. The reason McDonald's is different is not just that it's not pretty and doesn't fit with the achitecture of other countries, which seems to be the major complaint. The problem with McDonald's is that it uses US capital in less competitive markets to monopolize quick food service, arguable degrading that economy (the figures need to be studied more closely still), and definitely degrading the nutritional health of the community.
This divide is really puzzling sometimes. People seem to think that pasta is culturally superior to a hamburger. This is nonsense. It's just national cuisine, and varies in every country. The particular quality can sometimes be measured between the ingredients of specific examples of certain foods, but there is absolutely no logic in the world that can compare steak tartar and hot dogs, and declare one the winner.
America seems to be understandably cynical about the cultural productions of its own nation. There are a lot of questionable production and labor techniques involved, all well before the barrage of advertising that makes life in media-dense culture virtually intolerable. Even after that, the product itself is often superfluous, and if one has seen the inside of a mall lately, stupid.
No one wants to make the mistake of saying that their culture is superior to other cultures, because that has been the justificatin of the systematic rape and pillage of former colonies. But this does not mean that we should make the opposite error in assuming that "untouched" cultures are in any way superior. In fact, the more "untouched" a culture is, the more likely they are to have gross human rights violations. The more books and ideas and opinions you have in one place, the higher the chances of violently anti-humanity practices (like foot-binding and ritual murder) are of being found out as such.
What I'm trying to say is that America may be ugly sometimes, and the entire "Western" world may have the look of vacuity to it, but that is the price we pay for democracy. Everyone is allowed to make their own aesthetic choices, and those aesthetic choices may be an eye-sore to us, but they are most certainly not guilty of genocide, which is something that more aesthetically cohesive communities often are.
Slow down. The homogenization of culture in the US? Maybe the radio and television commericals might give one that impression, but the fact is, we have access to MORE art than any civilization in the history of our planet. Every kind of music that we know about can be found in a record store down the street. Meanwhile a poor community in Africa, to this kids, seems to have more culture, because people are wearing colorful clothes and doing funny dances! So their culture must be superior to ours!
I don't know what it is, maybe an over-reaction to imperialism, but to assume that just because a community is ENTIRELY INSULAR and has no outside influences, it is somehow MORE CULTURED than another, is insanity. I don't think these people realize though, that the danger of colonization was not exporting new books and ideas to the people. No, that's always a good thing. The danger is that in colonization and imperialism, we strip other peoples of their freedoms, by either claiming their country as our own, denying them food to convince them to convert (I'm looking at you, history's missionaries), or other practices of hegemony among a people with less power.
It is not imperialism to sell a Chinese book to a South American. The reason McDonald's is different is not just that it's not pretty and doesn't fit with the achitecture of other countries, which seems to be the major complaint. The problem with McDonald's is that it uses US capital in less competitive markets to monopolize quick food service, arguable degrading that economy (the figures need to be studied more closely still), and definitely degrading the nutritional health of the community.
This divide is really puzzling sometimes. People seem to think that pasta is culturally superior to a hamburger. This is nonsense. It's just national cuisine, and varies in every country. The particular quality can sometimes be measured between the ingredients of specific examples of certain foods, but there is absolutely no logic in the world that can compare steak tartar and hot dogs, and declare one the winner.
America seems to be understandably cynical about the cultural productions of its own nation. There are a lot of questionable production and labor techniques involved, all well before the barrage of advertising that makes life in media-dense culture virtually intolerable. Even after that, the product itself is often superfluous, and if one has seen the inside of a mall lately, stupid.
No one wants to make the mistake of saying that their culture is superior to other cultures, because that has been the justificatin of the systematic rape and pillage of former colonies. But this does not mean that we should make the opposite error in assuming that "untouched" cultures are in any way superior. In fact, the more "untouched" a culture is, the more likely they are to have gross human rights violations. The more books and ideas and opinions you have in one place, the higher the chances of violently anti-humanity practices (like foot-binding and ritual murder) are of being found out as such.
What I'm trying to say is that America may be ugly sometimes, and the entire "Western" world may have the look of vacuity to it, but that is the price we pay for democracy. Everyone is allowed to make their own aesthetic choices, and those aesthetic choices may be an eye-sore to us, but they are most certainly not guilty of genocide, which is something that more aesthetically cohesive communities often are.