Let us understand Cultural Imperialism

[canuckamuck]

The word for someone from the USA is "American". ....which of course is a form of cultural imperialism in itself........what other nation calls itself by the name of the CONTINENT they are part of...thus sidelining any other nations who share the same one?

I've done this battle a hundred times ... happy to do it a hundred times again.

There is a generic term for people from Africa to be called Africans.

From Asia, Asians

From European, Europeans

For the both North and South America ... Americans ... I don't think so.

Actually, the Australians go closest to a one continent name ... but their land mass includes Papua and New Guinea.

America - it's great marketing.

One simple universially accepted standard ... your passport says?

American Passport ... we know that's not true.

Your Passport is a true identity document ... 'America' is marketing.

Widely popular, granted ... no argument there from me.

.

It's not a battle - it is still an example of cultural imperialism.

South America speaks Spanish and Portuguese and Indian languages. None of them claim American as a word from their language. I would welcome any Canadians who refer to themselves as American to comment.

As a Canadian I can't remember hearing a Canadian refer to themselves as an American. We will occasionally refer to ourselves as North American however.

Regardless of how we feel about United States'rs. we just can't use the term for ourselves because it usually means, not us.

It is their fault for failing to coming up with an actual name for their country What can you call someone from the United States if you don't use the term American?

[CharlesHH]

Famous blond, light skinned movie actress, Charlize Theron, is from the nation of South Africa.

She is now an American.

So, she is an African American.

from SNL

Edited June 15, 2014 by CharlesHH

[aboctok]

There are some of western cultures that Thailand should borrow including equality, human rights and rational thinking. Also, Thai women should not be so submissive to their man. I think those would benefit Thailand a great deal. It is quite alright to state opinion isn't it?

It is rather like wearing clothes in a nudist colony.

What are you saying? So Thailand should not change?

I am saying Thailand is for Thai people. Change is for Thai people to decide. Nudity may make me uncomfortable but I'm not a nudist. I find it offensive that you think you know what is best for Thai people.

What about the idea that an improvement could be made available to somebody, by a person of a different ethnicity—is this also offensive? Or can this involve various cultures in general, but is offensive if applied to Thais? What if somebody from a different culture adopted or absorbed an idea from a Thai person? Would this be, oddly, a little less offensive? What if a non-Thai person provided an idea to a Thai person without promoting, or even knowing it; would this still be offensive?

Asserting that each country is simply "for" the people who are indigenous to that culture sounds hard to challenge. It's so neat. And when used in reference to Thailand (which it has been so often that it's become a slogan), it comes loaded with a bonus alliteration, just to help swing it.

Isn't it more accurate—less alliterative, admittedly more complex, but a more current and developed view—to acknowledge that international perspectives are increasingly predominant; that national cultures are under growing economic and social pressure to become less inward-looking? To insist that views that achieve significant international consensus should be ignored or repudiated, simply because they are unpopular in a particular country, is naive and disingenuous.

Edited June 15, 2014 by aboctok

[JeffreyWitty]

My favorite true story is expats who believe driving dangerously (such as overloading a motorbike) is a "culture".

Driving practices CANNOT be cultural in nature. Driving over in Thailand practically didn't even exist 100 years ago. For something to be a culture - its has to be widely acceptable by the populace for a long time - otherwise its a FAD.

Seriously, where in ANY guide book does the TAT list driving in Thailand as a cultural heritage?

I know Thais who find driving with too many people is a danger to themselves and others on the road - it's not just an "American" perspective. It's COMMON SENSE!

[canuckamuck]

Common Sense is also a western concept, or so it would seem.

[wilcopops]

Common Sense is also a western concept, or so it would seem.

Common Sense

There’s an ethnocentric comment.

'common sense' is the embedded, incoherent and spontaneous beliefs and assumptions characterizing the conformist thinking of the mass of people in a given social order. - Antonio Gramsci

It certainly isn’t universal in terms of conclusions and varies from region to region, culture to culture.........it involves shared beliefs, and empirical knowledge - practical experience - this will be different for different peoples. It contains superstition, folklore, simple religious beliefs.... some of which may seem ludicrous to outsiders.

It is often mistaken - especially in the West of being a true perception of how things really are - this is an example of mistaking empirical experience for critical thinking.

[wilcopops]

My favorite true story is expats who believe driving dangerously (such as overloading a motorbike) is a "culture".

Driving practices CANNOT be cultural in nature. Driving over in Thailand practically didn't even exist 100 years ago. For something to be a culture - its has to be widely acceptable by the populace for a long time - otherwise its a FAD.

Seriously, where in ANY guide book does the TAT list driving in Thailand as a cultural heritage?

I know Thais who find driving with too many people is a danger to themselves and others on the road - it's not just an "American" perspective. It's COMMON SENSE!

Attempts at defining what is and isn't culture are doomed - there is no satisfactory definition with reference to a particular country......

[wilcopops]

You wrote, "Cultural imperialism means that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation." - no, that's not how I see it...in fact it seems a highly dubious premise....which kind screws up the rest of the thread"

That being the case why don't you start your own thread?

I think the OP has a right to define a word any way he wants. It is obvious he means ethnocentric behavior. Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture.

Why don't you ask the OP instead of trying to take over the thread?

Bizarre!

Sorry, I don't understand. I asked a simple question. Why don't you ask the OP instead of trying to take over the thread?

The title of the thread is "let's understand cultural imperialism" - which the OP obviously doesn't...I've attempted an examination of possible meanings....

i find your post tangential to say the least...... It's a bit like the schoolboy who when asked in an exam to write about William II, writes about William the Conquerer instead

[wilcopops]

"Cultural imperialism means that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation." - no, that's not how I see it...in fact it seems a highly dubious premise....which kind screws up the rest of the thread.

here's a what I would consider a WORKABLE definition from Wiki....

"...... the practice of promoting and imposing a culture, usually of politically powerful nations over less potent societies."

the IMPERIALISM implies the imposition of cultural values on another nation

​someone sitting in a bar bemoaning the "Thai Way" isn't a cultural imperialist as they haven't succeeded in imposing anything....apart from a bad feeling amonst his audience.

​Cultural imperialism is practiced by both governments and big businesses in the way they conduct their affairs with countries like Thailand "imposing" McDonalds, KFC, trade, aid, and other aspects of the more "powerful" country's interests.

​Fat kids and firearms could be regarded by some as products of cultural imperialism.....

Well Wilco you are right that the OP has misused the term cultural imperialism. But you went too far by suggesting international trade is a defining characteristic. McDonald's was not imposed upon Thailand. McDonald's represents a business opportunity and someone here signed on.

Fat kids are the result of improper diet and lifestyle. Which is the fault of parents. Firearms are modern weapons. Which culture has been without weapons?

There may be some truth to marketing being a type of cultural imperialism. But really it is just a facet of economics and consumerism, and more recently globalization. The Earth is too small for any culture to escape it.

McD's is VERY MUCH an example of cultural imperialism - and by and large for the very reasons you cite. That's how cultural imperialism works.

Edited June 16, 2014 by wilcopops

[thailiketoo]

Common Sense is also a western concept, or so it would seem.

Like Canada's football players?

[thailiketoo]

You wrote, "Cultural imperialism means that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation." - no, that's not how I see it...in fact it seems a highly dubious premise....which kind screws up the rest of the thread"

That being the case why don't you start your own thread?

I think the OP has a right to define a word any way he wants. It is obvious he means ethnocentric behavior. Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture.

Why don't you ask the OP instead of trying to take over the thread?

Bizarre!

Sorry, I don't understand. I asked a simple question. Why don't you ask the OP instead of trying to take over the thread?

The title of the thread is "let's understand cultural imperialism" - which the OP obviously doesn't...I've attempted an examination of possible meanings....

i find your post tangential to say the least...... It's a bit like the schoolboy who when asked in an exam to write about William II, writes about William the Conquerer instead

I don't believe the OP asked you for an opinion. He gave you a definition of what he considered cultural imperialism for this thread. I find your post off topic and like the school boy who answers a question that was not asked because he does not know the right answer.

[wilcopops]

These middle aged guys who "Love Thailand because it is like the Wild West" should keep their thoughts for those on the bar stools next to them and spare the rest of us.

Everyone wants to be a cowboy.....except without the cows....and the work..........and the lack of hygiene (not universal on that one!)

[wilcopops]

Wow this guy is a complete idiot.

No you are. Do you get it? You attacked him instead of what he wrote. You may think he is an idiot. In fact, he may be but when you don't tell us why the burden of idiocy shifts to you.

LOL

TLT has just googled "ad hominem" and has partially cribbed some concepts from my posts......I doubt if it will result in a solid comprehensive argument though. ..... he still has to look up gainsaying.

[thailiketoo]

Wow this guy is a complete idiot.

No you are. Do you get it? You attacked him instead of what he wrote. You may think he is an idiot. In fact, he may be but when you don't tell us why the burden of idiocy shifts to you.

LOL

TLT has just googled "ad hominem" and has partially cribbed some concepts from my posts......I doubt if it will result in a solid comprehensive argument though. ..... he still has to look up gainsaying.

If you know what ad hominem means why do you keep doing it? Why not just stop trying to attack people and stick to attacking posts?

I think the OP meant ethnocentric instead of cultural imperialism. Most could go with that.

[wilcopops]

LOL

Wow this guy is a complete idiot.

No you are. Do you get it? You attacked him instead of what he wrote. You may think he is an idiot. In fact, he may be but when you don't tell us why the burden of idiocy shifts to you.

TLT has just googled "ad hominem" and has partially cribbed some concepts from my posts......I doubt if it will result in a solid comprehensive argument though. ..... he still has to look up gainsaying.

If you know what ad hominem means why do you keep doing it? Why not just stop trying to attack people and stick to attacking posts?

I think the OP meant ethnocentric instead of cultural imperialism. Most could go with that.

I draw you attention - yet again - to the title "Let's Understand Cultural Imperialism"

[thailiketoo]

I draw you attention - yet again - to the title "Let's Understand Cultural Imperialism"

I draw your attention - yet again- to the OP definition, "Cultural imperialism means that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation."

If you don't like it start your own thread with your own definition.

Edited June 16, 2014 by thailiketoo

[wilcopops]

I draw you attention - yet again - to the title "Let's Understand Cultural Imperialism"

I draw your attention - yet again- to the OP definition, "Cultural imperialism means that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation."

If you don't like it start your own thread with your own definition.

...and as I said that definition is untenable. Therefore it is safe to assume that the OP doesn't understand "cultural Imperialism"? so I would suggest that my initial reply is both on topic and relevant.

[thailiketoo]

I draw you attention - yet again - to the title "Let's Understand Cultural Imperialism"

I draw your attention - yet again- to the OP definition, "Cultural imperialism means that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation."

If you don't like it start your own thread with your own definition.

...and as I said that definition is untenable. Therefore it is safe to assume that the OP doesn't understand "cultural Imperialism"? so I would suggest that my initial reply is both on topic and relevant.

For purposes of discussion if the OP wants to define cultural imperialism as, "that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation." why is that untenable?

[wilcopops]

I draw you attention - yet again - to the title "Let's Understand Cultural Imperialism"

I draw your attention - yet again- to the OP definition, "Cultural imperialism means that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation."

If you don't like it start your own thread with your own definition.

...and as I said that definition is untenable. Therefore it is safe to assume that the OP doesn't understand "cultural Imperialism"? so I would suggest that my initial reply is both on topic and relevant.

For purposes of discussion if the OP wants to define cultural imperialism as, "that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation." why is that untenable?

See above.

furthermore you have already conceded that the OP's definition is in fact more aligned with "ethnocentricity" and there incorrect.

..are you going to burst?

Edited June 16, 2014 by wilcopops

[thailiketoo]

I draw your attention - yet again- to the OP definition, "Cultural imperialism means that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation."

If you don't like it start your own thread with your own definition.

...and as I said that definition is untenable. Therefore it is safe to assume that the OP doesn't understand "cultural Imperialism"? so I would suggest that my initial reply is both on topic and relevant.

For purposes of discussion if the OP wants to define cultural imperialism as, "that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation." why is that untenable?

See above.

furthermore you have already conceded that the OP's definition is in fact more aligned with "ethnocentricity" and there incorrect.

..are you going to burst?

Simple question. Why is that (the OP's definition) untenable?

[timewilltell]

Actually I am kinda saying that if the West supplies a motorcycle to Thailand, and a Thai uses it to pull a plow, the Westerner should keep his mouth shut if all he can do is condemn this usage of the bike just because HE just KNOWS how a bike should be used. Not everything in Thailand is "up to you."

So what the OP is saying is that if the world or particularly the west invents or discovers something like a motorcycle, they shouldnt explain how to use it safely.

So if Thailand buys a nuclear reactor from the west, insisting that they use it safely equates to imperialism. Hmmmm

So what you are saying is to say nothing despite the fact that pulling the plough with a motorcycle, being a use for which it was not made, will burn the grossly undersized engine up in a few days. And if you say anything to educate the idiot who plainly does not know the consequences of the use to which he is putting the motorcycle which probably cost a years income for him, then you are being culturally imperialist?

What a load of tosh. Tell the guy and then sit and have a beer when he ignores you to watch your prophecy come true. Better than going to the cinema and breaking a chair.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[laolover88]

Only just come upon this...been away to the land of true cultural imperialism!!

Try having a look at Thai cultural imperialism from the point of view of any ethnic minority, or in the case of Laos, ethnic majorities in Thailand. The Thais, whoever they are, are probably, I suggest, way more 'culturally and linguistically imperialistic than any insignificant western bunch. When they sneer at my children for being impure Luk Khreung we have taught the children to inquire deeply into the ethnic origins of their taunters...of course they are all half Chinese, half Lao, half Khmer, half vietnamese......It is Thai cultural imperialism that is to worry about!

[Thai at Heart]

"Cultural imperialism means that one person believes himself and his world view to be superior to a specific people or nation." - no, that's not how I see it...in fact it seems a highly dubious premise....which kind screws up the rest of the thread.

here's a what I would consider a WORKABLE definition from Wiki....

"...... the practice of promoting and imposing a culture, usually of politically powerful nations over less potent societies."

the IMPERIALISM implies the imposition of cultural values on another nation

​someone sitting in a bar bemoaning the "Thai Way" isn't a cultural imperialist as they haven't succeeded in imposing anything....apart from a bad feeling amonst his audience.

​Cultural imperialism is practiced by both governments and big businesses in the way they conduct their affairs with countries like Thailand "imposing" McDonalds, KFC, trade, aid, and other aspects of the more "powerful" country's interests.

​Fat kids and firearms could be regarded by some as products of cultural imperialism.....

Well Wilco you are right that the OP has misused the term cultural imperialism. But you went too far by suggesting international trade is a defining characteristic. McDonald's was not imposed upon Thailand. McDonald's represents a business opportunity and someone here signed on.

Fat kids are the result of improper diet and lifestyle. Which is the fault of parents. Firearms are modern weapons. Which culture has been without weapons?

There may be some truth to marketing being a type of cultural imperialism. But really it is just a facet of economics and consumerism, and more recently globalization. The Earth is too small for any culture to escape it.

McD's is VERY MUCH an example of cultural imperialism - and by and large for the very reasons you cite. That's how cultural imperialism works.

If Thais could get the world to eat somtaam blaaa, that wouldn't be cultural imperialism either.

Salty beef, with ketchup and thousand island is not a culturally unique taste.

[wilcopops]

If you think its the food on its own that is the cultural imperialism, then you have the wrong end of the stick.

[wilcopops]

Only just come upon this...been away to the land of true cultural imperialism!!

Try having a look at Thai cultural imperialism from the point of view of any ethnic minority, or in the case of Laos, ethnic majorities in Thailand. The Thais, whoever they are, are probably, I suggest, way more 'culturally and linguistically imperialistic than any insignificant western bunch. When they sneer at my children for being impure Luk Khreung we have taught the children to inquire deeply into the ethnic origins of their taunters...of course they are all half Chinese, half Lao, half Khmer, half vietnamese......It is Thai cultural imperialism that is to worry about!

Except what you are talking about isn't actually cultural imperialism, its a kind of racism....which C.I. can be too, but C.I. is the imposition on or infiltration of one culture by another.

The definition I,ve put forward earlier on is in my opinion the only one here that is workable....no one else has even tried to define what they are talking about which makes a valid argument extremely unlikely.......

[wilcopops]

There is a type of fallacious argument, usually connected with racism and promulgated by racists, that those who claim to be victims of racism are also capable of racism too....whether or not this is accurate, it is a fallacious argument. It in no way deters from the original premise...more of the same can't argue against. So to imply that because Thais may be guilty of cultural imperialism in no way negates the proposition that they are subject to the same themselves.

Unfortunately the OP appears not to know what cultural imperialism is so the whole premise is a moot point...as are subsequent postingsbuntil there is common agreement on what C.I. actually is.

[Thai at Heart]

There is a type of fallacious argument, usually connected with racism and promulgated by racists, that those who claim to be victims of racism are also capable of racism too....whether or not this is accurate, it is a fallacious argument. It in no way deters from the original premise...more of the same can't argue against. So to imply that because Thais may be guilty of cultural imperialism in no way negates the proposition that they are subject to the same themselves.

Unfortunately the OP appears not to know what cultural imperialism is so the whole premise is a moot point...as are subsequent postingsbuntil there is common agreement on what C.I. actually is.

I still fail to see what is being imposed on thailand.

[simple1]

There is a type of fallacious argument, usually connected with racism and promulgated by racists, that those who claim to be victims of racism are also capable of racism too....whether or not this is accurate, it is a fallacious argument. It in no way deters from the original premise...more of the same can't argue against. So to imply that because Thais may be guilty of cultural imperialism in no way negates the proposition that they are subject to the same themselves.

Unfortunately the OP appears not to know what cultural imperialism is so the whole premise is a moot point...as are subsequent postingsbuntil there is common agreement on what C.I. actually is.

I still fail to see what is being imposed on thailand.

Fair enough comment, but there is a great deal of pressure being applied by the international community on Thailand to comply to Western standards / UN conventions. e.g. do not comply we will put in-place sanctions such as withholding access to funds from the likes of IMF and the World Bank. Does this fall under the banner of cultural imperialism?

[CharlesHH]

"Imposed" on does not always include direct threats but also "attractive lures" such as my example about the luring of farmers off the land and into cities to work in factories. That happens often because the existing govt has no policies to help farmers stay on the land, a good goal for the rice capital of the world. Without help, the farmer is lured to a steady salary but at the significant disruption of his life style, most of which takes him into debt, away from his extended family, and inserts his children into a world very foreign to the father (city life).

Too, very repetitive assembly line work removes the worker from most satisfaction of a job really completed; he becomes an extension of the machine which is a long way from the cycle of planting, harvesting, and eating on the farm.

Surely people can exist this changed way, but what about Gross National Happiness and life coherence and satisfaction. Cultural imperialism works in many ways.

There is a type of fallacious argument, usually connected with racism and promulgated by racists, that those who claim to be victims of racism are also capable of racism too....whether or not this is accurate, it is a fallacious argument. It in no way deters from the original premise...more of the same can't argue against. So to imply that because Thais may be guilty of cultural imperialism in no way negates the proposition that they are subject to the same themselves.
Unfortunately the OP appears not to know what cultural imperialism is so the whole premise is a moot point...as are subsequent postingsbuntil there is common agreement on what C.I. actually is.

I still fail to see what is being imposed on thailand.

[CharlesHH]

Ethnocentric and culturally imperialistic

The terms are of course related, but it is interesting that the children of the largest Empires of modern times have sought (on this venue) to defuse the power in cultural imperialism by reducing it to simple ethnocentrism. Certainly those asserting their Western superiority to Thai culture are ethnocentric but do refuse to see the cultural imperialism also involved in their opinions. I think this is a defense mechanism by the typists on this site to cope with their dim self awareness of their imperialistic views and behaviors. All this relates powerfully to Thailand and we foreigners together.

Regardless of that, I recommend reading the Wikipedia entries on both terms. Cultural imperialism exceeds ethnocentrism in that the latter is simple belief and opinion that can be held, quietly, with little harm to others. However, when the former emerges, we see the damage to real established cultures of the world, usually Third World. One example could be that the Thailand Hill People have become parodies of themselves, pretending to live in the old ways as a tourist attraction and selling their hand crafted items as if they were trinkets. The cultural damage is significant and irreversible. The injection of masses of Han Chinese into Tibet is crushing Tibetan culture by their presence, and Red China's repressive policies are the forceful arm of that cultural imperialism there. There are just too many examples.

Then, the Westerner asks, "What is lost?" and asserts "these people are better off" with the West's labor saving machines, for example. Well, I am unhealthily fat because I own so many labor saving machines (I hope you smile with me at that). What is lost is DIVERSITY because it is from different approaches to life that we can learn what may be best for us. If the encaged consumerist life of the West is all one can see, then that is all one will have. It is like the answer to why save the rain forests; the diversity of life there is so valuable, for a crass example, because one of those things there may someday be the new penicillin that will save your hide. Too, "better off" is like beauty, only in the eyes of the opinion holder. Read more, cant hurt you, really.