@Catchabula,
Catchabula wrote: In my first post I did not say a lot indeed, but imho it did produce an interesting thread. My first text was all about emotions and even about morally dubious ones (there may indeed be a dash of xenophobia in them), but I can assure you these emotions are more than personal, they can almost be touched here in Flanders. These and all other emotions are relevant to philosophical investigation and I tried to rectify a few things in my second posting, rephrasing the whole thing by returning to good old Reason. JgWeed noted and appreciated that. Being cool and reasonable is mostly the best option, especially in such sticky and emotional matters. But one can and may never ignore the emotions and leave them out of sight, reasoning without noticing emotions just drawing a ghost.
As far as I am involved, my post (#17) is in regards to your first post, not the extrapolations from your responses of others. Not to seem disinterested, but I think we can both appreciate the separation in discourse.
Catchabula wrote: So one can say "I am proud of my culture" or language or whatever, or one can say "I want to investigate the emotions / concepts / ideology concerning cultural pride and all of its related concepts / emotions", and this is arguably of some importance. If one answers one emotion with another nothing is said, nothing is discovered; there is just another senseless flame-war. I already tried to restate my initial posting into something that was philosophically more practical (or at least potentially), but some reactions were not really productive and to the point. There's something strange about talking in an emotional state, it not only diminishes the general quality of your own thinking but also that of others, and this condition spreads like wildfire. I would say: back to Socrates and not to the Sophists, and I wish to excuse myself if I was unclear, rhetoricaI and prejudiced. But I often can't help it, it's one of my main vices. But not many replies where sharp, objective and constructive analyses of everything involved here either. Yes we are all nice people, so let's stop this becoming some kind of football match where everybody looses. Let's boldly go somewhere, but not back to the start.
Catchabula wrote: I also like hamburgers from time to time, but that's not the point. The point being that leaving cultural dispersion to itself, to the "free market mechanism" or to the "survival of the fittest", will bring along the marginalisation and endangering of "smaller" cultures, whatever be their value. And each culture has its value, even when they're a rare remnant of the Stone-Age. I definitely don't say that some cultures are inferior, particularly not the American one, but I do want to live my own culture and I experience that as increasingly difficult. Small cultures disappear world-wide, and indeed a single planetary culture is rising, and it is largely American. Am I really the only one who has some difficulty with that, who feels that this is at least an ambiguous development, that this could lead to some global impoverishment? Ok, I give up, I will surrender to that brave new planetary monolythic culture, after all it's just a matter of "lingua franca", nobody really loosing anything here. As long as we have some money we will be able to bye a flemish book in a flemish bookstore, there will be always some niche in that huge world-wide market. That bookshop may even survive thanks to the visits of American tourists, who are interested in our museums and culture and open themselves for it for a brief moment while on vacation. And some may even stay here in Flanders and bring in some investment. Who could ever object to the influx of foreign money? They surely don't do that in the Philippines.
I find it interesting to address your conception of the cultural diffusion. Is the diffusion of one particular culture into another necessarily a bad thing? I think you look at it in a current context without considering the long term effects it brings. Western culture (which you and I are both products of) are the result of such diffusion which you appear to oppose. Ancient Mycenaeans for example were influenced by a diffusion of Minoan culture, Mycenaean by Attic Greek, etc. Each culture indeed has its value as you ardently point out, but is it the case the Minoans and the Mycenaeans share the same stage with the Attic Greeks, the Hellenistic Greeks with the Romans, The Roman with the Persians, the Persians with the Ottoman Turks? All are a product of cultural diffusion. Suffice to say that the current culture you live in is a result of the diffusion of many others over the course of many
manysurvivesCatchabula wrote: (Rhetoric) As I said I like hamburgers too now, I didn't like them before but that was just a proof of my personal and irrelevant ideosyncrasis. There are tenths of hamburger joints here in G... now, some nearby and that's even very convenient. McD... bought several crumbling old houses in this town and rebuilt them into beautiful and hygienic hamburger joints. Who could ever feel bad about that? If it wasn't MacD... it would be a Nike, or Levi's Jeans, or whatever. At first I didn''t like the harsh lights of hamburger joints but lately I'm getting used to them. There is no cultural agression or imperialism involved here, these are notions without sense. We are evolving towards a global culture and I will be glad to join in. After all the winner is always right, and now I will shut up and try to learn something. "And yet it turns..."
(Quid Pro Quo)