Are anti-globalisation protestors selfish?

Solly · May 30, 2003, 10:53

I can't remember where, but I saw an extremely thought provoking argument whereby it was claimed globalisation protestors wish to see other nations closed to our cultural influence, yet have our culture influenced by others.

Why is this selfish? Well, we get the benefit of being able to choose from three main nation's dishes (Chinese, Indian, Italian), plus many less enjoyed ones if you live near a big city. We can wear goods styled on other countries' cultures.

Anti-globalisation protestors wouldn't like to see American/Western influence spread.

Are they really protesting against "cultural destruction" benevolently?

Or are they really in favour of a world where individual cultures are still avauilable for them to watch on travel shows, for them to travel to and take pictures of?

It sure is a pity they can no longer walk the banks of the Tigris without seeing a McDonalds! Why deprive other nations our culture. We enjoy theirs.

It seems these protestors care more about being able to keep a nation all quaint and undeveloped.

Why does it matter to someone in Seattle who has - given probabilities - not set foot outside of the US, if a Chineseman wants to wear Levis or a Thai wants to eat McDonalds?

Cultural deprivation, that's why. Selfish?

JohnT · May 30, 2003, 10:56

Yes. Believe it or not, I pretty much agree with all your points.

:drops dead again:

Imran Siddiqui · May 30, 2003, 10:58

JohnT: succint as always

.

Those anti-globalism people that share this mindset (that other cultures should be spread, but not American culture) are hypocrites. Don't know if they are selfish though.

Spiffor · May 30, 2003, 11:06

The problem with the spread of American/English culture is a problem of pace, even though things are less bad than a few years ago.

The pace of American/English culture is overwhelming for many cultures, which are partially threatened from the onslaught (Only Hollywood movies shown in the theater, English-speaking shows everywhere on telly, etc.)

Should the English/American culture spread at a reasonable pace, like other cultures, without the risk of overwhelming fragile cultures, I'm sure the anti-globalization guys would love it.

Japher · May 30, 2003, 11:07

This is funny.

Last year I was in Philly for work and some British guy told me that Americans don't have a culture of our own. Now, I am seeing ppl trying suppress the spread of this non-existant entity.

I wouldn't call it selfish. Though I can see how it can be viewed this way. Perhaps those who protest about it are being selfish, but I think the greater supporters are more in fear of losing their culture or more importantly the cultural heritage. They just fear change...

You gotta change with the world or you will be left behind.

Tingkai · May 30, 2003, 11:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
The problem with the spread of American/English culture is a problem of pace, even though things are less bad than a few years ago.

The pace of American/English culture is overwhelming for many cultures, which are partially threatened from the onslaught (Only Hollywood movies shown in the theater, English-speaking shows everywhere on telly, etc.)

Should the English/American culture spread at a reasonable pace, like other cultures, without the risk of overwhelming fragile cultures, I'm sure the anti-globalization guys would love it.

Exactly. It is not about one culture influencing another, it is about the overwhelming wave of American culture on other countries.

However, I don't completely agree with the anti-globalisation view on this issue. It's not that they are selfish. Far from it. They have a genuine concern about protecting other cultures because they think that American culture will wipe out the other cultures.

That's where they are probably wrong. American culture tends to be absorb and then changed within other cultures, or at least that's my experience in China.

A greater threat is the proganda that the free market is the best for economic growth. It is propaganda because those who advocate are from countries where the free market really does not exist.

Imran Siddiqui · May 30, 2003, 11:16

Quote:

That's where they are probably wrong. American culture tends to be absorb and then changed within other cultures, or at least that's my experience in China.

American culture is very flexible... which is also why some people say it doesn't exist.

FrustratedPoet · May 30, 2003, 11:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
Last year I was in Philly for work and some British guy told me that Americans don't have a culture of our own.

You should have mentioned that in the "Dumbest thing that's ever been said to me" thread.

Tingkai · May 30, 2003, 11:16

One other point. The nations that face the greatest danger of being swamped by American culture are place like China, Italy and India. Instead, it is the other English-speaking nations like Britian, Canada and Australia. We risk having American corporations dominating our culture.

Solly · May 30, 2003, 11:18

Quote:

They have a genuine concern about protecting other cultures

Do you think they will be protesting about how British culture is being wiped out by Indian culture next?

Spiffor · May 30, 2003, 11:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's

Do you think they will be protesting about how British culture is being wiped out by Indian culture next?

Aren't they already to busy with protesting against the American culture wave in Britain ?

Arrian · May 30, 2003, 11:26

Everyone is selfish. Duh. Human nature, remember? Or are you a commie?

-Arrian

Solly · May 30, 2003, 11:27

I'm quite glad we've got it. I'd rather have a McDonald's and a fish and chip shop than two fish and chip shops.

The best chip shop will survive anyway.

Tingkai · May 30, 2003, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
Do you think they will be protesting about how British culture is being wiped out by Indian culture next?

Ask me that when the Brits stop eating beef and start treating cows as sacred.

Imran Siddiqui · May 30, 2003, 11:34

A substantial minority of all Indians (especially if we are, correctly, refering to the entire subcontinent as Indian) don't do that, Tingkai

.

Arrian · May 30, 2003, 11:37

Question, Imran:

Why would India WANT Pakistan?

-Arrian

Tingkai · May 30, 2003, 11:45

It was a joke Imran.

And by the way, you must be feeling pretty good. The Cup looks like a foregone conclusion.

Imran Siddiqui · May 30, 2003, 11:49

Quote:

Why would India WANT Pakistan?

What?

Urban Ranger · May 30, 2003, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
The pace of American/English culture is overwhelming for many cultures, which are partially threatened from the onslaught (Only Hollywood movies shown in the theater, English-speaking shows everywhere on telly, etc.)

This is cultural imperalism, the displacement of local indigenous cultures by Western ones, esp. US culture. This is just a replay of biological imperialism, which was carried out by Western explorers and settlers throughout the New World and Africa. They brought in their own species of animals and plants without paying attention to indigenous species, thus causing many to extinct.

But I digress. Sure, may Westerners are interested in foreign cultures, but most just see them as either novelties or subjects of study, but hardly ever as something to completely submerge oneself in. Boddie mentioned Chinese and Indian food. I don't think he wants to be identified with either one of these cultures.

Another major problem of globalisation is economic domination. By exporting capital, MNC's seek to dominate emergent markets. Local industries are no match for these deep-pocketed monsters; they can drive out competition by a sustained price war. The World Bank and IMF are unwitting (?) accomplices in this economic imperialism, their loans have an awful numbers of strings attached to them.

DaShi · May 30, 2003, 12:48

I rarely see foreigner's immersed in Western culture. They just see it as a novelty, subject of study, or a threat resulting from their own insecurities.

Sava · May 30, 2003, 15:25

I think anti-globalization is more about protesting Multi-National-Corporations' exploitations and abuses rather than protesting the McDonalds in Europe.

chequita guevara · May 30, 2003, 16:33

*must keep away . . .

Odin · May 30, 2003, 16:47

I think they are worried that the west would treat the native cultures as "barbaric" and themselves as civilized, like the Brits' attutude towards the cultures on the Indian Subcontinent or China's cultural repression of the Tibetians and the Turks of Xinjiang.

JohnT · May 30, 2003, 17:21

As opposed to now, when they want to keep them backward and benighted museum pieces?

Odin · May 30, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
As opposed to now, when they want to keep them backward and benighted museum pieces?

Mixing of cultures is good, steamrolling over other cultures is bad. A group doesn't need to stay backward to preserve a culture unless the group is a hunter-gatherer society.

Japher · May 30, 2003, 17:36

Lets just make "zoos" in which we can put all the 'native' people and they can live within their cultural tribes and people can come and look at them (but not feed them)... Oh, wait we already do... We just call them Reservations.

Seriouslly, in all do respect, with the population getting bigger and the size of the planet remaining the same, something has got to give. We are moving away from having our individual communities and neighborhoods where everyone comes over and has a BBQ and plays lawn darts... We are forming into a world community, and as a world community we need to learn that some ppl are different and some culturals are different. Is it really Americas fault the some ppl within these regions want a McDonalds or to go to that neighborhood picnic and play some lawn darts?

GePap · May 30, 2003, 17:55

McDonalds i not culture. It is a food business, and its implications go beyond "culture", to such things as economics. In fact, the biggest effects of globalization have far more to do with a dramatic change in the economic structure of other states, bringing along rapid societal change than it does culture; for example, a new McDonalds will try to fit it menu to where it goes. What changes then is not what general type of food people eat (culture) but how they eat and spend their money (introduction of mass consumerism, an economic change as much as cultural). This si what most globalization people protest, as well as people within small nations. For wexample, McDonalds would seek to get its food from large producer, to lower its cost, so perhaps it won;t buy from small local farmers, thus undercutting the profitability of their livelyhoods. The question is, would growht in other secotrs of the economy offset the loses farmers suffer, and perhaps allow for mass growth in cities as farmers leave the countryside?

That is the read and butter of globali8zation, not whether a man in Britain eats chips or fries. (which is more a factor of Cosmopolitanism, which is ages old)

Shi Huangdi · May 30, 2003, 18:36

Cultural imperialism is acceptable in that its voluntary. If you don't like US cultural products, don't buy them. If, OTOH, people in a foreign country want to eat at McDonalds, more power to them.

Sava · May 30, 2003, 18:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Cultural imperialism is acceptable in that its voluntary. If you don't like US cultural products, don't buy them. If, OTOH, people in a foreign country want to eat at McDonalds, more power to them.

I agree. To some, it may seem chauvinistic. But let's be honest. There are some really bad things that go on in other cultures. Look at the treatment of women in the Muslim world. America has its problems, but it's a helluva lot better than a lot of other crap around the world. And that's why the capitalist system is great. It gives people choices. If the masses decide that McDonald's is bad, they will stop consuming the product and it will die. Or the business will change to adapt to the demand of consumers.

Kidicious · May 30, 2003, 18:53

I wonder if the teenagers in France spit in the hamburgers like they do in American?