Eurotrash

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

schloopfeng
 
Reply Tue 30 Dec, 2008 06:17 pm
@Catchabula,
hello again,
I did state that this perspective was deeply flawed, all I was illustrating was a kind of starting block from which I view this subject, this is because I cannot give you my full opinion on it as I have not reached conclusion yet, it is also very likely I never will, I'm just stating where I'm at in relation to the subject at present. I have a lot of respect for America as the rest of the world also, it provided me with one heck of a bike frame for a start (santa cruz nomad ....lovely...& at least i have something without the made in china stamp lol).
Thankyou for the starbucks info though, Tea & free wifi .....there is a god Laughing
 
Catchabula
 
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 06:19 am
@schloopfeng,
Just noticed how weird my last posting was, saying one has to be rational in this kind of matters and yet giving in to emotions more than ever. Yet I don't feel guilty, inconsequence being the hallmark of sincerity. "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne conna?t pas", "the heart has its reasons that reason does not know" (Pascal?). Let's have another one. "Homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto", "I am man, and think that nothing human is strange to me" (Terentius?). Well, in philosophy matters are explored but rarely "solved" no? In particular you can not "solve" your own (collective?) emotions. From cultural pride to the value of emotions, for me this thread was useful. But of course this is another story. "I'll be back!".
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 09:47 am
@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.

I'm not particularly interested in the epideictics, more to the point the content. Loose implications of ulterior contexts are fine but I am focusing more on the implied statements? specifically of your first post and this one.

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 many years. How hilarious would it be if the ancient Gallic tribes of western Europe suddenly stand up and say, we want to preserve our way of life too, heck maybe even the people before them. Also, it seems as though your position entails a sort of isolationism. I suppose that's fine as well, nothing bad ever happened to a country that was isolationist? look at Japan, they maintained a pure Japanese culture for hundreds of years (except for the whole Perry thing). One thing you probably do not account for is the economy. Which actually brings up an interesting point. It seems like your position is populist in nature, like the Leaga Nord movement in Italy. Also, the Philippines survives off of global investment and tourism, especially American naval investment.

Overall It seems counterproductive to suppose the way you do, but who knows? the Italians have the slow food movement and their economy seems to be in tip top shape? On a side note? I'm not a big fan of hamburgers myself, red meat has too much saturated fats.


Catchabula 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)
Don't eat at McDonalds, they use hydrogenated oils for frying and they still have trans fats in their foods. Interestingly enough, McDonalds has been in deep financial troubles for a few years because people started realizing that it was not the food itself that was the problem but the preservatives and additives that were causing multiple health problems in the US. McDonalds has been forced to (in some areas) revert to peanut oil, but they still use heavy preservatives and high amounts of sodium. They have had their business cut almost a third in the last two years alone because of this as well because many Americans are refusing to eat their in lieu of healthier alternatives (and more cost effective ones). Ironically, McDonalds franchises in Europe have almost doubled and they have not restricted the content of the preservative ingredients. Should you be as concerned for those houses more than your health? As for cultural aggression, Americanization, and McDonalds? of course there is aggression. McDonalds wants to make a profit and they are willing to go overseas to exploit a higher profit margin because they are not getting the business they used to here. Supply and demand I guess. Heck, Britney Spears owes much of her come back to European sales and she's been old news in America for close to a year now.

I also like your loose reference to the Melian Dialogue, in so many words "The strong do what they can and the weak survive what they must." Ironically, the Athenians were overturned by the Peloponnesians, in turn by the Macedonians, in turn by Romans, etc. "And yet it turns" indeed.

Also, in regards to post #22...Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds profound)
 
Catchabula
 
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:44 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Hm, feeling a bit dizzy here with the wine of the New Year's Eve. It's a quiet New Year's Eve here at the Catchabula mansion. Not a big dinner (we had that on Christmas), but just bread, wine and fine cheeses, all with names like poems. Say aloud "Baron d'Arignac, Vin de Pays d'Oc" and have a taste, and you'll be in old Europe, en douce France, oder in Deutschland, or in Flanders' Fields. The cd is the Polish Psalter from 1580. I feel immense depths under me now, the depths of history, the depths of long-forgotten passions, and yet I want to do this exercise, this cleaning-up. Catcha made quite a mess of it again, mixing emotions with reasoning, creating bad poetry and even worse philosophy, and of course that was not the first time. Ok, I'm honored with mod's VideCorSpoons reply, and I will try to make the best of it, considering my personal limitations and the nature of the subject. I want to learn and to grow, I want to be an Advocatus Diaboli now, I want to get rid of my prejudices, or at least of some of them. In the future I will try to make a more dry, solid, substantial analysis; this old fart here must still have a little brains left. Let me start with a few questions to myself:

What is "culture" and how to define it? I still don't know for sure but the notion is surely flexible and too often abused. Did I mean local culture, national culture, global culture? Did I mean "personal" or "collective" culture? Did I mean "high-brow" culture or also the local toilet-habits? Are there really any boundaries between cultures and if so what are they, where are they and how can they be detected or recognized? I'm trying to be objective at the moment, language being at least ambiguous as a criterion for distinction. Take "Anglo-Saxon" culture: at first sight there is a huge difference between the American and the English branch of it, and yet they also have so much in common: language, history, traditions. And what have both to do with the historical Anglo-Saxons, for Tolkiens sake? There must be some relation that still matters. My present view being that there is no clear distinction between cultures, that every distinction is somehow artificial and futile and that the concept of separate(d) cultures is merely an illusion. There is never an opposition, except as part of some ideology or personal deception, such as local or international politics or affirmation of the ego. Cultures are at all moments the result of fusing, melting, mixing, they are doing that continously and they can never escape doing that, because (each) culture is essentially "dynamic"; it is continuously changing over time, almost like a living organism. There are no clear geographic boundaries between cultures and there are no clear historic boundaries to be determined either. "A" culture does not exist, there is just a continuous worldwide flow of forms, an incessant mix of ideas, there is just humanity and its adventure. There is only our common human condition, in spite of our many tragical misunderstandings, in spite of our stubborness and pride. We give names to make things easy, Flemish, European, American, but these names are so deceiving. They are labels hiding what we have in common, blinding us for our common interests and our common goals. Beethoven's Ninth is playing in my head now: "Alle Menschen werden Br?der...". Come in my arms, my fellow Americans, and bring in what you have and what you are. We will talk all night and there will be a deal!
.
(My wife says I had enough wine... HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY !!! )

Oh, one more word about McDonalds. This is definitely not the best of examples if it comes to demonstrate cultural imperialism! They have no cultural intentions at all, it's just a multinational wanting to make a profit, and for that purpose they use their various assets, "imago" for example. You can either take or leave them and where-ever they go there is still an ample opportunity to avoid them. Same with so many other "invaders" here (not only American by the way): just companies trying to make some profit, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, and this is called world-wide capitalism. Oh yes, we in Flanders also ware t-shirts made in Indian sweat-shops, and in fact we are all guilty in the Western World; no opposition when it comes to exploit the poor of the Earth. But this kind of repression is economic by nature and not cultural. The more I think about it the more elusive and futile the notion of cultural imperialism becomes. It simply does not exist, it's just the result of ideology, or maybe some politically manipulated frustration. I was helping the manipulator by subscribing to his rhetoric, I was helping Hitler to destroy the Jews (nah, not really...). I am guilty indeed, but so are we all...

There must be more I wanted to say, but the bottle is almost empty and it seems I forgot. It takes a philosopher to spend your time with this kind of stuff at this particular moment. Have fun folks, and seeya all next year!
 
 

 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2026 at 06:02:03