The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 6, Thread 15.

1. Cutural Imperialism
Thu, Dec 24, 1998 - 10:35 AM/EST
Max2

In recent days, I have noticed, not for the first time, that just about whenever the U.S. decides to do something, or anything actually, three countries always object; China, Russia and France. Others object as well, but these countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council, and they also, coincidentally, have Nuclear Weapons, so I wanted to concentrate on these countries.

Russia and China I can almost understand being against the U.S. in most things. To put it simply, and possibly outrage many people, but this is my opinion, it is "good against evil" (pronounced "E-ville" hehehe)

But France? Surely the French Government is not trying to be Evil, are they? I did some research and, in terms of what they call "Cultural Imperialism", the French are leading the anti-American voices.

In everything from bombing Iraq to the Internet, these three countries walk hand-in-hand with each other in their anti-American cultures. If I might quote from some resources quickly :

"There is a growing concern amongst some that the Internet will bring about (or increase the presence of) a "McWorld". That is to say, a world saturated by U.S culture and marketing strategies where mass entertainment products etc. are lowered and leveled to the lowest common denominator in an effort to make them attractive to the broadest possible audience.ÖThose who perceive diversity as the cornerstone of culture, indeed, of humanity, fear the advent of a homogenised global culture and the imposition of cultural uniformity on a global scale."

IMO, what we are seeing today is not actually a hegemony of American culture, since there is little in that culture that can be called inherently American. What's really happening is an `internationalization' of material culture throughout a world that has truly become a global village. Because the United States is itself a hybrid nation, made up of immigrants from many nationalities, it is acting as a `crystal ball' for the rest of the world. Saying the Internet is American is like saying electricity is American.

"Former French Minister of Culture Jack Lang and governments around the globe have expressed concern regarding the influence of American cultural products on both local and national cultures. Often expressed in the term "cultural imperialism," this concern has become a topic of debate in not only scholarly circles, but in economic, legal and legislative arena as well. "

However, IMO the underlying force threatening the paranoid enemies of so-called American Imperialism is progress itself , if progress looks American, that's not America's fault.


What are your thoughts..?
MAX

2. evil twins, perhaps?
Thu, Dec 24, 1998 - 11:02 AM/EST
andi2

what is in the american interest is not necessarily in the interest of the rest of the world. the french simply don't say it in english, and so it sticks out more. having a different agenda doesn't mean that the opposing side is evil.

france has a long history of imperialism, so does the u.s. the french called it imperialism, the americans have called it different names, from foreign aid to the defense of freedom. the french sent their own troops made up of foreigners, the americans have generally paid foreigners to implement their policies.

there isn't that much difference apart from the american government using more cant and the french language being more beautiful and a good deal less useful than english.

3. I want to respond but..
Thu, Dec 24, 1998 - 11:34 AM/EST
Max2

Andi,

While I am itching to respond to your comment, I would like to give others time to respond first.

But don't worry..I got something for ya....
hehehehehe

MAX

4. against itches use flea powder
Fri, Dec 25, 1998 - 12:54 PM/EST
andi2

i knew you'd love it.

5. I think...
Sat, Dec 26, 1998 - 5:03 PM/EST
peaux2

you're both right.
America has always been on the forefront of technological advances, but also famous for pushing its own political agenda, housed in colorful, plastique packages wrapped with "progress" paper.

If American advances are attractive to other cultures, it is not necessarily because we shove it down anyone's throat, however, we do have a propensity for enforcing our "Democratic" methodology by withholding our knowlege, monies, aid or statesmanship from anyone not towing the "democratic" line.

Sounds to me like other cultures are quick to complain about our quid pro quo approach, as if we are somehow bound by human law to share our every discovery, advance and progressive breakthrough. If we truly believe in Democracy - which allows only for equal opportunity not equal wealth - we should not feel the least bit guilty about our 'tit for tat' system.

If a country (or culture) takes a communistic or socialistic stance - which demands equal sharing of everything for all (at least in theory) - then they are within their philosophical rights to complain about our (seemingly) capitalistic idealogy.

I believe that America is pretty much as altruistic as any other country... we give of ourselves even when we (as a people) do not agree with the practices of another government because we want to help PEOPLE not governments.

Our system is not what other countries want for themselves, fine, but if they want our "goodies" (protection, monies, trade, weapons, visitation rights...etc) then they will have to play ball OUR way.
When you negotiate from a position of inferiority, you have no choice but to accept the terms of your "superior".
DO i think America is superior to other nations? Hell yes, I'm an American.
Do i think that other countries see us as inferior to them? Hell yes, they are not American.
No one forced EuroDisney upon an unsuspecting nation, they (or their government) accepted it.
In America, if the people don't want to be invaded by an outside entity, they have the power to stop it...(they might not succeed but then again they might) if other cultures don't have this ability, that's not our fault.

8.
Sun, Dec 27, 1998 - 11:10 AM/EST
andi2

american imperialism is sugar-coated with hypocrisy. its foreign aid is on the whole a subsidy given to american industry and agriculture. there's nothing wrong with that (actually there is, but let's not go into that here), just let's not be holier than thou about the whole business.

11. Hello Everybody
Mon, Dec 28, 1998 - 4:06 PM/EST
eastpeach2

I'm not sure I agree with Max's main premise, but I'd like to hear more. In terms of our foreign policy, I don't believe we really have one at the moment. In a post-Cold War world, the U.S. is the only super-power left, which naturally makes us a target for many things, both good and bad. I don't see our current president providing any ground-breaking insight or direction in this, or any other, arena. To me, everybody is just jockeying for position.

Personally, the lines get blurred between culture and economics in terms of U.S. imperalism. Maybe you're saying this Max and I'm just missing it. *grin*

And in terms of those French - now there's a true cultural imperalist if ever there was one! They don't hate other people, but they most definitely do give a merde. The French look down their cultural noses at every other country, period. And the Quebecois? Cute but misguided step-children.

12.
Mon, Dec 28, 1998 - 5:03 PM/EST
Max2

Andi calling the US and France evil twins is shortsighted, to say the least.

Andi stated that (speaking about the French) "having a different agenda doesn't mean that the opposing side is evil". Well let me ask you this. Since our agenda is, in your own words: "defense of freedom", how exactly is this anything but good? Wanting to give freedom of choice and Democracy to a people oppressed by a government cannot, by definition, be anything other than good. (Russia, China, etc..)

The intention of my post was to gain others opinion about what the French and other countries call "Cultural Imperialism". I don't see how "defense of freedom" can be construed as Imperialism. In which country would you base this assumption on.

Max

13. Oh, but why wouldn't we care ...
Mon, Dec 28, 1998 - 5:59 PM/EST
eastpeach2

Max:

I'm interested in your statement:

"The intention of my post was to gain others opinion about what the French and other countries call "Cultural Imperialism". I don't see how "defense of freedom" can be construed as Imperialism. In which country would you base this assumption on."

Actually, in terms of France, I think we're in agreement - they are by far the bigger cultural snobs than the U.S.! However, I can see how defense of freedom can be seen as cultural imperialism. That's actually one of the bases for my blurry line between economics and culture.

When Americans think of freedom, we think of democracy (including our form of economics), thus the defense, or spread of it. What I believe we're really trying to do is foster capitalism over most other economic forms (especially communism). Therefore, capitalism = culture, and then you get the Disney-fication of everything (or insert MacDonalds or any other corporate entity that suits your fancy). While all three countries, France, China and Russia have the historical bases to lay claim to "cultural imperialism", I believe only France is, today, truly talking about culture and not a form of government or economics. China and Russia use it as a smokescreen for other things.

Given what I've just argued, can you not see how "'defense of freedom' can be construed as Imperialism?" Britain was accused of just this during the crumble of its empire. I also believe that what we view as "freedom" in this country is just not "freedom" everywhere else. I do not think, given China's history and culture (oh, that bloody word again!), that western democracy will ever work there. Doesn't mean I don't see the human rights abuses going on, or the political imprisonments. And yes, I wish they weren't happening. But the U.S. gives out mixed signals - we allow China most favored nation trading status, while remaining silent (for the most part) on the human rights and political abuses going on. So what "freedoms" are we championing? This is where it gets blurry for me.

14. Freedom
Tue, Dec 29, 1998 - 11:53 AM/EST
Max2

Eastpeach,

Let me first thank you for the civil tone you present your ideas withÖ

Now on to Freedom. This is not a word we tie to anything. We do not necessarily want Capitalism to go along with Freedom. You must keep those two things separate, Economics and Freedom are two very different things. We stand for the choice of a People to decide for themselves which economic system they wish to pursue. Many cultures have Freedom but operate under Socialism or a modified Capitalistic economic system. When we went to war with Japan and Germany and gave freedom to Eastern Europe, we did not tell them, YOU MUST BE CAPATILISTS.. we let each Country decide, as it should be.

So, I must stick to my argument, Freedom does not equal Capitalism. Our defense of freedom is purely for Freedom's sake. No ties. Many examples exist of this propensity for Freedom and allowing a people to choose their own economic system.

While I don't agree with allowing China "MFN Status", to shut them out would never allow us to have a dialog with them. Everyone from Henry Kissenger to Richard Nixon accepted this, though it is a bitter pill to swallow, I agree. We call it "Progressive Dialog", where we can condemn there human rights abuses, but still maintain a channel of communication with them. Plus, I hate to say it, but it's true, it's good for U.S. Business. However, if we choose not to have any ties or if we insult China by not giving them MFN status, we have no clout to make even the smallest changes in that Country (of about a third of the world's population in China alone).

So, again, my point is that I do not agree that the U.S. is engaging in Cultural Imperialism. We force nothing on anyone, we pressure Freedom, but how can wishing a People "Freedom" be anything other than good.

MAX

15. freedom?
Tue, Dec 29, 1998 - 2:13 PM/EST
andi2

"So, I must stick to my argument, Freedom does not equal Capitalism. Our defense of freedom is purely for Freedom's sake. No ties. Many examples exist of this propensity for Freedom and allowing a people to choose their own economic system."
(i just hope i got the whole thought this time.)

you're joking, aren't you? let's see:brazil, 1961, goulart promulgated socialist policies, was toppled by the military in 64 with american blessing. cuba, bay of pigs, remember? at a time, when fidel was still rather popular in cuba. chile and pinochet, argentina with its military coups, nicaragua, el salvador and a few others, the afghani islamists used to be freedom fighters when they did to the russians what they are now doing (as terrorists) to the americans.saudi arabia is another country well known for its freedom and democracy.of late, american intervention has become more subtle and is generally restricted to economics.

countries have got interests (or their leading elites do). they will generally act accordingly. it's a bonus, if interest and ideology coincide.

cultural imperialism, an example.
the cheapest way to run a tv station is to show american programmes; and having little money, that's exactly what many do. you don't have to force them, they simply can't afford anything else. they have very little choice in the matter.
true, they don't have to have tv, but if they want it, that's often the only kind they can afford.

don't misunderstand me. if i had to chose between a country like china and another like the u.s. i'd prefer the u.s., if only because in the u.s. not quite as many people are being executed. but it is rather a question of shades of grey, rather than black and white.