Discussing Ideas
Inspired by Fellows...
NB: No mention of any governmental administration is allowed in this topic, I know this will be hard guys, but we are discussing ideas not people and who might or might not be associated with these ideas.
My topic: Significance of international relations, economically, politically, culturally and the improvement of the world wide human condition.
Should a nation that has the cultural domination of the United States turn to insularity to protect the wealth it has accrued or should its goal be to continue to spread its culture/ideas into regions of the world that may respond negatively to such actions? Is either really possible?
Discuss. (as I am on the eastern seaboard and not at work yet... I have to leave this topic tending to itself, take care of it... great things might come out of it)
NB: No mention of any governmental administration is allowed in this topic, I know this will be hard guys, but we are discussing ideas not people and who might or might not be associated with these ideas.
My topic: Significance of international relations, economically, politically, culturally and the improvement of the world wide human condition.
Should a nation that has the cultural domination of the United States turn to insularity to protect the wealth it has accrued or should its goal be to continue to spread its culture/ideas into regions of the world that may respond negatively to such actions? Is either really possible?
Discuss. (as I am on the eastern seaboard and not at work yet... I have to leave this topic tending to itself, take care of it... great things might come out of it)
Comments
Therefore people buy goods related to this way of life. So people want to buy goods refering to the US culture. In this way it's allow US to export many products.
Now to take an another example, France has a huge culture of wine foods, and luxuous products. That's not an hazard if it's ecnomy is great in these particular aeras.
In conclusion : the economy is influenced by the culture. A countrie without any culture influence has few chances to get a leadership in a particular aera of the economy.
To answer your query, I think the question itself might be a bit misleading. I don't know that I subscribe to the notion of "cultural dominance". I think there is a difference between parts of one culture being pervasive throughout other cultures, and dominance. Dominance sort of implies that everyone ascribes to a particular culture, or that everyone has a culture thrust upon them somehow.
Human beings are great immitators, and once the world was made small by cargo ships, airliners, televisions and internets, it's only logical that the practices of one culture will be emulated or assimilated somehow by those of another. It's only natural for example, that Japanese kids have learned to love rock-n-roll, or that Americans now have a relatively new affinity for Thai food, or that Turks love blue jeans. There are a million and two (maybe million and three) examples of one culture borrowing things from another.
It could be said in fact, that the US has no culture of its own technically speaking. Relatively few things that we love and live everyday are purely of this place, other than some notables like Jazz or Corn-dogs or the afore-mentioned blue jeans. Naturally, many of our grandparents or great grandparents were immigrants, and so brought their ideas and living practices from another place. I would say, for example, the cultures of say Sweden and Poland and Morroco are much more homogenous / original than is our own. We are the great borrowers... we take the bits and pieces of other cultures that we love, and assemble it into something new. The human equivalent of Konfabulator I guess.
So to get to the heart of the matter, I think the question should more accurately be phrased: does a nation of tremendous means (financial, technological or otherwise), have a duty to help other nations which struggle mightily in the same arenas? Do countries with tremendous agricultural success have an obligation to aid those developing nations where modern agriculture is non-existant? Do countries with tremendous medical resources have an obligation to help other countries develop the same kinds of resources in order to help themselves along more in the future? Etc. Etc.
I think legally, the answer is no. No country is obligated to spread their understanding of any field, just on the basis of having such understanding when other nations do not. In a perfect world, I think there probably should be such a precedent set, but ultimately our own greed and insecurities will prevent that from happening. Until leaders and governments value the notion of empowering some of the weaker nations among us to take care of themselves, more than they value the notion of being in a position of power and leverage, these things won't change.
Ethically, I think the answer is yes. All wealthy and developed nations have an obligation to help undeveloped nations get on their proverbial feet, so that eventually they can take care of themselves and join the larger world community.
Have to go to lunch now... will come back later.
Now if by culture you mean pluralistic society with a representative government based on individual rights and a free market economy then yes I do think the US should promote that around the world. Especially in those areas that are the antithesis of those things.
Although my response is short, it's not meant to be angry. I'm just tired and will add more.
The below is completely wrong:
Originally posted by Scott
The US does not have a policy of spreading its popular culture around the world. It's just part of the process or a free market and consumer choice.
It is indeed (and has been) policy. I'll dig up the quotes and references, most of which relate to Hollywood.
Originally posted by Harald
...
It is indeed (and has been) policy. I'll dig up the quotes and references, most of which relate to Hollywood.
Please do.
I will be back tomorrow, hopefully in all of my intellectual glory...