|
|
|
Just saw a talk on NBC-Superchannel's Rivera about a high-school (?) in Orlnado, FL., whos schoolboard stated in the curriculum: "America's Culture is superior to all other cultures in the world". The discussion about it really surprised me. The main arguement against it was, that the children will find this out on their own, they don't have to be taught about it. To give them thi s result would decrease their ability to find out the truth fromt the facts. But every American would share this opinion. Saying American's culture is superior means - the other way round -. all other cultures are inferior. Right ??? Let me ask You a question, dear americans : What makes You think, you're the crown of creation ?? (pls. don't misunderstand me: there's pure curiousity in this question, rather than any anti-americanism.) There are more people murdered in the USA every year than in an average civil war. There is a lot of racism. Death penalty. Enourmously social problems. Weapon Exports in any country who can pay. and lots more... Or was it just a bunch of WASPs trying to make us believe that America's majority shares their nationalistic dogma ?? joerg (from a definitely NOT superior culture)
50 responses total.
It's probably not wise to extrapolate one school board's actions to the whole U.S.A. It's a large country with many opinions and many subcultures. To be honest I don't find a bit of geo/ethno-centrism to be all that surprising. Every place would like to be the best at something...
maybe I didn't make it clear: the point was for me the way this was discussed on TV. so it became more a 'common sense' than a singular florida-schoolboard- opinion. Maybe I'm a bit unclear about the term 'superior'. Doesn't it include a WORTH? and, by the way: how does a ethno-centrism look like in multicultural society like the american ??
Its a nightmare. I for one think the American culture stinx. There is no set culture. The diversity is interseting, but it causes SO many problems. Don't get me wrong now, I wouldn't have it any other way ;)
Where can I go to find a "set culture"?
The dairy section of your local grocery store.
Good one, Tim! (Nice to see your sense of humor is working again.)
I personally am disgusted with the idea of trying to teach that any
culture or people is superior to another culture or people. The way in which
this concept was discussed on TV indicates more to me the problem with the]
commercial TV network than a problem with american attitude in general.
It has been shown repeatedly that what appears on the idiot box screen
does not in the least accurately reflect american society, but rather it
picks out aspects of society and blows them all out of proportion to achieve
its own agenda, the selling of product.
Most Americans are probably quite boring unless you're a sociologist,
and maybe even then. What TV does is scan the surface for those who stand
WAY out, and use them to entertain and shock the rest of us so we'll be glued
to the tube and a captive audience for the advertisers.
Much of our country's problems today derive from the inability of our
population to recognize the difference between TV and real life. (My opinion!)
This is an education issue.
The constitution and bill of rights of the USA may well be superior to similar documents around the world. But a statement about the superiority of "America's Culture" needs to include a definition of "America's Culture" before I can evaluate it.
Where's the argument. Clearly, Appalachian and U.S. inner city cultures are superior to all others, present or historic.
Is that a macrobiological response?
Er... It was a sarcastic response.
Gee, even I realized that!:)
when I first heard about this (the school board in Fl) I was in school so I didn't know that any discussion had been televised. I saw it in a newspaper adn it was, in my opinon, on of the most disgusting thinkgs I had ever heard. (and let me tell you, I've heard some pretty disgusting things ) First of all, it si a national issue because the same people who brought that rule about are literally "moving in" on school boards around the country (I think you may know this already). BUt what makes it really horrible in my opinion is that it's makink blatant somethink that many of us have to deal with every single day. The persistent idea that white american culture is superior to every other culture. When it is convenient, people make reference to the fackt that "we are a multicultureal society", and of course we are, but the sad thing is, that the people who run the tv progamming and are generally in power are also part of mainstream white american culture and so that's what I see everwhere I look and that's what I've grown up with seeing (and I _did_ grow up in Ann Arbor, in case you're wondering.) What I remember the school board wanted their chidren to learn was that "american culture is to superior to all others" but at the same time, another "rule" called for teaching children "respect for other cultures" -- Good luck! (hopefully you can just smell the sarcasm)
While I wouldn't say white American culture is "the best" (I'd save that
for one of the Oriental or Northen European/Baltic cultures), we sure as
hell are better than most others.
This isn't something I gloat over as I say Heil Hitler!" or anything,
but I think it is a simple fact.
Which one nation is always jumping up to help others? WHat one
nation shells out the most for the UN? We have the largest technological,
scientific & financial base, & we use it to help other nations without
trying to dominate them. This of course is an American thing, not just
a white American thing.
But, when as a whole, you look at how totally phucked up American
black culture (again, this is a factual generality, I realize that there
isn't just one black culture here, nor is there just one white culture in
the U.S>A.) is, wlarge difference in life expectancy rates, due to black
violent crime, medical problems, educational & economic deficiencies, etc.
as compared to the white population, American whites have a clear advantage.
Of course, the reason for the black American culture having these
abundance of negative aspects is debateable, but the purpose of this
response is to merely support my opinion that American culture --particularly
'white American culture' (sic) is better off (aka superior) to most
others, in terms of 'quality of life,' scientific advances/technology, &
care/compassion (as a nation) for democratic principles & supporting/impro-
ving the quality of life for less fortunate nations.
You've got to be kidding me. You did not actually say that Black American culture has an "abundance of negative aspects", did you? Ask anyone in the majority of countries around the world, and you'll find that far from being te totally generous minded society that you imagine, in just about every single case money from te US or the World Bank/IMF comes with a pretty hefty pricetag: support the introduction of Multinational businesses (most of them based in teh US) into your country, develop your industry to fulfill the desires of American consumers, and learn to deal with the explotiation of your country I don't know, it just doesn't sound too great to me. Also I have to question the fact that you claim that because white Americans have more advantages thay're better. If this is not what you meant, please explain.
'BLACK AMERICAN CULTURE' HAS AN ABUNDANCE OF NEGATIVE ASPECTS. But no, I didn't say that American honkies are better than American bruthas & sistas -- only that their 'culture' is.
I believe Hoolie means to refer to black american *popular* culture or inner city culture. The black american middle class culture is not that much different from white american middle class culture. But it doesn't get much attention. Painting inner city culture with too broad a brush is unfair, certainly. But there are a lot of objective measures by which inner city culture (no matter the race) is not as functional as the "culture" of more affluent areas. And Hoolie is correct in his assertion that the present welfare programs have contributed to this phenomenon. Frankly, I don't care much for white american popular culture.
Sorry for the much delayed response (doing this only at work and having not so much time has a lot to do with it) but here goes... Black American culture can not be separated from white American culture. This is because it is not possible to have the "high sstandard of living" of (let's change the terminology a little to reflect realities, as aaron pointed out, there are a number of middle class blacks) the American middle to upper class without having a lower class do most of the dirty work. Sadly, to a large extent, in this country, the divisions over who is in the lower classes and who is in te upper has a lot to do with skin color. I'm just talking stats here, I'm making no historical references (although I could, since I _am_ a history major...). I perrsonally do not think that a group of people can have a superior culture just because it has a higher standard of living, expecially if they get that higher standard of living from having others do a lot of the work. Here, I'd like to bring immigrants into the picture (just to make it a little more realistic) and especially non-European/non-white immigrants. The fact is, a lot of the labor in the secondary labor market (what I like to call "shitjobs" because they are about as fun and pay about that much) is done by these immigrants (I'm limiting myself to the U.S. for the moment, but not for long!). How is this? While there certainly are a lot of white people in the lower classes, percentage-wise, there are more in the middle to upper classes. The opposite tends to be true for the other two groups I mentioned (Blacks and Immigrants) I'm not going to get into why that is, actually, because I think I'll let you respond to what I've sadi so far, but before I go, here's teh part about the rest of the world... if you look at the tags on most of the items that are for sale in stores, you'll notice (you no doubt already have) that most of it si made in other countries. As you may or may not know, the simple reason for htis is that it's cheaper to do it that way. Because of the risk of getting involved with annoying labor laws in the U.S., it's simply easier to go somewhere else, just over the border to Mexico, for example, and make the stuff there. --I've got to go, so I'll stop here, but I'd liek to hear what you have to say about what I've written so far.
Those nasty jobs might indeed be nasty, but the bottom-line (IMHO) is
that without them, many of the people wouldn't have ANY income, other
than social assistance programs.
I guess I'm a follower of the old 'Puritan ethic' -- work hard & ye
shall succeed.
I'm speaking as someone (a honky at that!) who has had to change
toilet seats at a company ('O' shaped ones don't meet code, whereas the 'U'
shaped ones do!).
There are plenty of well-educated, motivated people of ALL races (& any
other labels you might want to stick them with) who, due to today's economy,
are stuck with jobs way below their skill level. "Shit job" is a relative
term. Bill Gates probably wouldn't be happy earning $5/hour cutting lawns
or shovelling snow (neither would I, which is probably the only thing I
have in common with him!), but Pedro Gonzalez, who has no formal education &
is a legal immigrant here in the U.S> would jump at the chance to get that
job! Is he wrong to do so? Should he 'hold out' & apply for that Chief
Executive opening at Ben & Jerry's, or wait until Bill Gates is ready to
retire, & apply for that job?
I think that most of the 'unskilled' jobs go to 'unskilled' people.
If you think that is unfair because a large percentage of these 'unskilled'
people happen to meet the criteria of some sort of 'minority' label, then
so be it.
What happened to all those Orientals who worked the laundromats &
constructed railroads in the late 1800s/early 1900s? How come their
ancestors aren't vying for so many of the 'shit jobs' these days?
<descendents>
Thank you!
Yes, I do think that because most of the "unskilled" jobs go to people who "happen to meet the criteria of some sort of 'minority' label" because that suggests to me that something is going on. There can only be two reasons for this kind of disparity: 1) there is something inherently wrong with 'minorities' or 2) there is something wrong with society and the way things are. I personally fully reject option one and so I feel the need to invegate option 2. No doubt you feel there is something in the idea that something is wrong with (to use your example) "black" culture and that is why they do not succeed in this country to the extent that whites do. I say there is a reason for Blacks having the problems that they have that does not really have anything to do with " culture", it has more to do with the fact that the opportunities are not the same for both groups. You say you believe in the "Puritan ethic" but from what I've seen, one of the major problems with society is that many "minorities" believe in this idea so that when it just doesn't happen, the opportunities just seem to pass you over, someone who's had far less education and experience gets promoted just a little bit faster and you wonder why, it's very easy to become bitter and figure that the " American dream" just isn't for people of color or women. Some of the people at my school who work the hardest are these people. I can tell you this from my own experience (certainly there are plenty of white males who work really hard, but I'm talking percentages). Many of them work hard becasue they've got to keep the many grants and scholarships that are getting them through school so they've got to maintain the grades (and work up to 1 hours a week). Most white students don't work as hard, they may spend a lot of time in the library, but they don't usually work very much, if at all (by the way, the limit for number of hours you can work in a week in my school is officially 10 hours). And the result? After they graduate, it's the white males who do better. Funny how things seem to work, isn't it? That's why I'm not so sure I really believe in the "Puritan ethic" it's not at all guaranteed that you will succeed if all you've got going for you is hard work.
(success is relative.)
on rereading my entry, on the line where it ways "and work up to 1 hours a week" it should say "work up to 14 hours a week" carson, success may be relative, but if you can't _choose_ which kinds of success you can achieve, while others with the same abilities can, something's wrong.
Anyone who assumes they CAN'T, SHOULDN'T!
(I can't see why anyone CAN'T define what makes themselves successful. If a kid is well-off just because of a financial inheritance, does that make the kid successful? If a kid grows up in poverty and eventually works hard enough to own a home, is that not a success? If a kid gets married but doesn't have any children to carry on the family name, is that a failure?) (Personally, if I get married, have kids, work in an environment that can both help support my family and keep me happy, I will consider myself a success. I believe that these things are more likely to happen to me if I keep my head up and persevere where others quit and whine and complain. In fact, I consider myself successful every time I succeed where someone else has failed.) (Anita, when you say that people who have the same abilities can't achieve the same kind of success, I think you missed a few abilities. Not everyone has the ability to be supported by their parents. Not everyone has the ability to go to rich relatives. Not everyone has the ability to fend for themselves. Not everyone has the ability to jump into a brand new car when they need to go to work. Not everyone has the ability to stay awake for more than 24 hours. My point being: everyone is different. You can equal the playing field *maybe*, but you can't equal the players. It doesn't happen, and the world is at least a more interesting place because of this.) (Hoolie, the Puritan ethic is more of an ideal than a guarantee. I think that if I were to work hard and have someone shoot me in the head for it, I'd miss out on success.) (Before civilization, was there a need for a work ethic? I'd guess that it was understood that survival wouldn't happen without a little effort, an unspoken ethic, if you will.)
Before I do anything so silly as to try and defend what I supposedly define as "success" (especially after Carson's detail treatment of that topic ) I would like to make sure... did I introduce that idea? I don't think so, correct me if I'm wrong though. My personal philosophy is that everyone is born with the same amount of potential and the environment that each person growsup in or lives in helps to decide in what way that potential is developed. Really rich people develop different skills to survive than really poor people. I don't deny this. But Carson, there is something imbedded in the media and, I guess in the culture that says that success is living out the "american dream" getting that house in the suburbb ad the two kids adn a dog. I think taht the American dream is incredibly messed up because it has become a lie, just like the "puritan ethic". Everyone gets told that all you need to do is work hard and you will be rewarded with some sort of achieve ment of this ideal, and yet, the way this society works,it is impossible for _everybody_ to "make it" someone has to fail. You've got to have a city to have a suburb. No, I'm not going to tell you that This culture is better than any other, but I'm also not going to tell you that it is worse because te basic fallacy of the topic "is america superior?" is that in the end, no culture is supoerior to another. BUt what we can do is try and improve the situation within our cultural setting. and not to deny that some peopel are part of our culture because the lines of culture are not that rigid. Actually, I have not liked to use the idea of "culture" to discuss these topiccs becasue it does not really cove what I've been talking about. But thtat's another issue.
The "puritan ethic" (if that's what it's called) was just the idea that in the New World you can be born in a pigsty and end up in a mansion. There was never any guarantee that you *would* end up rich: don't be disappointed with America over a promise no one (not even Ben Franklin) ever made. All it meant was that merely having been born in a pigsty would not in itself prevent you from building your mansion. When Franklin was living in France, he was asked to write a pamphlet addressed to Europeans desirous of moving to America, telling them what to expect when they got here. The first and most important point Franklin made was that your name or title, which might gain all sorts of preferment for you thoughout Europe and which in many cases could practically guarantee a sinecure at public expense, wouldn't count for spit in America, where, said Franklin, people asked not "Who is he?" but "What does he do?" That practical everyday egalitarianism came as quite a shock to the European immigrant - a nasty shock to the titled ones, but an incredibly joyful and liberating one to ambitious commonfolk. That's all the American Dream ever was. I think it got romanticized and blown out of proportion. Then of course times have changed. Titles don't count for much more in Europe than they do here. As for us, we have all kinds of cliques and classes and factions now, as laughable and as deserving of extermination as any titled aristocracy or caste system ever was.
["Much less is it adviseable for a Person to go thither who has no other Quality to recommend him but his Birth. In Europe it has indeed its Value, but it is a Commodity that cannot be carried to a worse Market than to that of America, where People do not enquire concerning a Stranger, What is he? but What can he do? If he has any Art, he is welcome; and if he exercises it and behaves well, he will be respected by all that know him; but a mere Man of Quality, who on that Account wants to live upon the Public, by some Office or Salary, will be despis'd and disregarded." from "Information to Those Who Would Remove to America," Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Library of America, 1987, pp. 975-983.]
That may have been true for Euorpean _men_, but there is not equal treatment nor equal opportunity for the poor of Europe and the poor of Latin America who come here _today_.
this is very true in fact individuals are leaving the united states to go to europe because there is opportunity and money to be made, easter europe is teaming with ex-patriots
[Oh, yeah, that must be the Brain Drain I keep hearing about. I've considered moving to Eastern Europe myself, but that was when the basement was flooded.] Why don't you think women could also better themselves by moving to America back then? If a woman's fate was linked to her husband's in that not-completely-enlightened age, and if her husband bettered himself by moving his family to America, then wouldn't the woman be better off, too? [FUN ALERT: But this is so obvious, it can't be what you're referring to. Maybe you mean all those 18th century career gals who came to America with their briefcases and their resumes looking for equal pay for equal work? You know, the ones you see in the Nike commercials?] Anyway, I was just giving my own take on the "American Dream" issue. I agree with you that America is definitely not a more desirable destination than it was 200 years ago, except possibly for Africans.
re #29: Please back up your assertion with facts.
re #31: Hmmm.... You live in Bloomfield Hills and are awfully puritanical.
Where were you born? ;)
I am told that my family's origins in Italy were quite humble, although I don't know that there was an actual pig sty. I do remember my mother calling my room a pig sty. I believe she was using the term metaphorically, however. Re the item topic: It's sheer vanity to think we're the only country whose citizens imagine its culture is the best on earth. We're no better or worse than the French or the Japanese or anyone else in that department. As to multiculturalism, I think you could make a case that America's patchwork quilt of a culture is indeed the best on earth. You want it? We got it. We may not always love each other to pieces, but at least we're not Bosnia or Lebanon or India or any of the other countries where the different cultures are *blowing* each other to pieces.
I think it would behoove the notion of a "best culture" to actually define the culture being discussed. What is American culture, and on what points is the comparison between it and others being made? If, as I believe to be the case, we are discussing apples and oranges, only the most superficial comparison can be made and the concept of one being "better" than the other is meaningless. If, on the other hand, we can show differing cultures to be somehow structurally similar, we can then make comparisons on the basis of parallel points within the different structures.
created in history. It appears arrogance is the norm in the US. The french may have the rep for thinking their culture is best, twice this century, it was Dueschland uber alles, so the German's need some recognition for their cultural arrogance as wel but America takes the cake,the most insecure and dangerous nation in the world, yet we're the most heavily armed. Americans think they are so smart, yet 20% of our adult population is functionally illiterate, in europe, and in asia bi-linguality and multi-linguality are normally expected from grade school children here in the US we applaud loudly at high schoolgraduates most of whom could not survive outside of their own familiar yet dangerous culture. Two books. In the Abscence of the sacred by Jerry Mander and Friendly Fascism by Bertran Gross attention to it and never deal with any real issue's or problem solving. If waste and excess were a sign of greatness then the US is it 5q q m
Plus, a lot of us don't know to hit the RETURN key after each line.
The most intresting aspect of this debate is that it is taking place on a conference called WORLD NEWS which is almost exclusively devoted to discussing American politics. Apart from the item on skinheads in Germany the rest of the planet is not deemed important enough to be worth discussing (o.k Somalia is mentioned, but I somehow doubt that it would be a topic of conversation if there was no U.S involvement). It certainly seems American news is superior(irony intended)!
Well, most American news reflects the audience's interests. I mean, Clinton has been hanging out in Jakarta for the last while, but what percentage of the TV-viewing public could find Jakarta on a map to within a thousand miles, even if told what nation it is in? What was the topic again?
"Think globally, talk nationally."
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss