I'm a pre-university teacher teaching language and current affairs, needed a quick download on cultural globalisation, this was very helpful and well-linked to many other concepts, thank you much.
just a thought but isn't the country of America herself a product of globalization from that time period? I mean it took cultures from around the world to create the whole country, not just the English...right?
The view you are expressing was manufactured after WW1 and more so after WW2. But none of the Founding Fathers believed in "melting pot" theory and in fact that term was not popularized until the 20th century by immigrants. The first immigration act (1790) in the US expressly stated that only western Europeans would be citizens. The US was essentially isolationist with a few exceptions where US sailors were being kidnapped. The US was also not a free trade nation. The US rose into a powerful nation on isolationism, tariffs, and strict limits on immigration and citizenship. There was however a constant tension between the manufacturing north (favored protectionism) and the agricultural south (favored free trade). There were of course other major divisions (Puritan and Anglicans) which also drove a friend/enemy distinction. Any discussion of "melting pot" at the time of the founding of the US would have been in reference to Puritans and Anglicans, along class divisions, and rural/urban divides. These were the important divisions at that time.
Not the same as the halloween we have today. The true halloween started in Ireland, but let's be for real, America Americanized it and changed the substance of it.
@@FizPro agreed, and every time we encounter the word "Halloween" the first country that popped up in our mind is America. Well, this is only based on my observation.
Imperialism can be seen as an acid poured into a substrate. The substrate will not dissolve at the same rate because of variances in density, Ph, temperature and other factors. This is when heat, additional acid, or kinetic energy (force) are applied to make the solution uniform. Uniformity of inputs and outputs in central to optimized industrialization. And in the digital production, uniformity of access to users data is also central. What we have seen in the 20th century is the rise of wars for humanitarian reasons. The justification for Western (UK, US, Australian) wars across the world are nearly always based on "good" reasons "for humanity". But if we look at them carefully, its really just that the West found a undissolved mass in the solution that wasn't breaking down. There are many of these undissolved masses and regularly they are targeted for heat, additional acid (culture), or kinetic energy. The Vietnam War is one example. Essentially, "humanitarianism" is the cause for war because these arguments always start by dehumanizing the other as racist, xenophobic, nativist, nationalist, communist, theocratic, etc. These are all labels for groups of people who do not want to be cast into the solution and dissolved. This makes them the "other" and therefore the enemy.
Globalization and the internet seem inextricably linked which means it is taking place in cyber space yet I would say that 90% of what is considered " culture" takes place in real time and on the streets, markets, gathering places and worshiping houses. They cannot be channeled into cyber space and those who run it do not and cannot have the knowledge that is in the minds of the traditionalists who maintain these traditions, but above all who engender the creative aspect of those myriad cultures - The identity of each culture needs the privacy of space to grow and be spared the contamination by foreign cultures - That universal aspect of all cultures stands against the nature of a global world
Cultural globalization is an oxymoron. Ever since the end of WW2, with the advent of thinktanks like Tavistock (which was founded in England), culture has been replaced by social engineering, and although much of consumerist "culture" originates in America, social engineering as a concerted effort of the globalists, works on the global level. Globalization leads neither to cultural imperialism nor cultural homogeneity, but rather cultural dissolution and disintegration, with the main factor being immigration. If we define culture as the unity of style of a people based on their racial idiosyncrasies (tempered by time, tradition, hardships, etc.) that finds its expression in their unique art, architecture, clothing, religion, cuisine, etc., then culture, in the highest sense of the word, cannot find any expression in a multiculturalism, another oxymoron, since one can never preserve their own cultural identity in a milieu of various alien races, but rather, over time, homogenizes until what you have is anti-culture. The traditionalist's perspective often confuse history with culture, and present artifacts (e.g. the Gothic cathedral) of their cultural heritage as being proof that their culture is alive, yet as they have no bearing or effect on the person's present identity, they remain as mere spectacle. And as social engineering and globalization become more intensified, each subsequent generation grows more distant from their past, until finally they are completely severed from it. Remnants may remain operant, but they are few and, again, have no real effect on the person's identity and actions.
I have come to the same conclusion. US cultural imperialism is more of an acid than a vector (a direction and intensity towards something). As an acid, it breaks down cultures into a solution that is suitable for processing.
The whole argument of western culture imposing itself is kind of ridiculous. The countries in question are not forced to accept or buy our products and other goods. They choose to. There is nothing wrong with expanding business where ever you are able to.
