egafd.com

This is probably nothing new.......doesn't Asterix defend Gaulish cultural identity from creeping Romanisation? Didn't the Spartans and Athenians impose Hellenic linguistic and cultural characteristics on most of Mediterranean society? Isn't the 'Rape of the Sabine Women' about intromittent biological hegemony?
The main criticism of Americanisation is that it has no deep underlying ethical, philosophical or cultural depth, apart from 'sell, sell, sell'............BTW, Theroux was drifting toward grudging approval of the 'Texas Solution' last night- until he uncovered the terrifying statistic that more young Afro-Americans in Texas are in gaol than are in education. Talk about dead-heading the roses, while letting the roots rot...........and I cannot fathom the logic that says the answer to gun-crime is to have MORE guns.

That's probably a good analogy, JJ, since Rome also had little or no culture of its own at first---simply what it had borrowed from other countries (usually Greece). And Romanising conquered countries was the best way of pacifying the natives. No contest really between Roman baths, larks tongues in aspic and clean linen with looking like dung, eating dung and occasionally painting yourself blue to hide the dung

If I understand your last bit correctly, the comment about oil, then its justifying action to secure cheap oil. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Mart

Knave Editor wrote:


Forcing their culture down everyone's throats??? Not sure what you mean by that, but don't you think killing 3,000 civillians is perhaps a little harsh in response? Still, they're only Americans so that's okay, isn't it?


************************************************************

Actually I was looking at it from a historical perspective, but thanks for the typical knee-jerk reaction that anyone who actually understands current affairs/international relations must be anti-American!

All empires through the ages have suffered "terrorist" attacks by those that they oppress... the Romans, the Egyptians, even the British.

The difference between the US form of imperialism and past empires is that the US does not always conquer a country and leave behind a friendly administration, as Britain did with India, for example. Instead the US "conquers" the world economically and culturally (Hollywood, Nike, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, etc.,), and backs it up with a mighty military machine that enforces the US way of life on those that try and turn back the tide! (Brief example that even you may understand. When the pro-US Shah of Iran was overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists who wanted a return to a stricter interpretation of the Koran, and may I add, supported by an overwhelming majority of the citizens of Iran, the US helped overthrow the government of neighbouring Iraq, and installed a regime it knew was very much against Islamic fundamentalism. That regime eventually was headed by Saddam Hussein, who more than once met with senior US politicians and businessmen who poured billions of dollars into the country and sold a wide variety of armaments and arms machinery. Saddam was encouraged by the US to attack Iran in the hope that a more US-friendly regime could later be installed. The plan back-fired big time, as we all know to our costs!).

Another difference between the current US empire and previous empires is that it is now the only major force in the world. While the Roman empire was the stronger of the two, it had a counter-balance in the form of the Egyptian empire. The British had rivals in the shape of firstly Spain, then France then Germany. In the early years of the US empire, it too had its limits, imposed by "power" of the Soviet Union. With its demise, the US is now the world's only superpower, and now attempts to wield that power unchecked by anyone.

The final, and in my view most worrying, difference between the current US empires and former empires is the belief that the rest of the world should follow its example, or even that it should help "liberate" the rest of the world. Few things are more dangerous than empires pursuing their own interest in the belief that they are doing humanity a favour.

There is an arrogance about the current American administration (look at its current treatment of the UN, its contempt for international treaties and agreements, the Earth Summit, etc., for examples) that is dangerous for us all. Since the demise of the Soviet Union to keep the US in check, things have got worse not better! The Middle-East, for example, is an even more volatile area than before, and things are no better in Africa, either.

I am not condoning the events of 11 September 2001... I do, however, understand WHY they happened, and why they are likely to happen again.

The sooner we all understand why and do something about it, the safer we will be!

'...since Rome also had little or no culture of its own at first---simply what it had borrowed from other countries (usually Greece).'

I'm not sure if you mean this but it's not really true. The one great example of Hellenism in the early Roman world was the function of the polis, or city-state, but even here the arguments are more that it's development was more of a merge of styles rather than plagiarism. Look at the chronology and you will see more parallel development than we traditionally think. Early Etruscan and Latin art and literature is terrific.

The one area where Greece held a certain cultural hegemony was in philosophy. But in this the Romans would pick and choose the bits they wanted. They preferred the practical application of policy rather than its theoretical debate. In addition Pax Romana was built less on cultural imperialism and much more of series of local accommodations than is credited. It's one of the reasons for its longevity. Much of this 'Romanisation' was done voluntarily by indigenous tribes or peoples. For as you say, it was better than the alternative.

Certainly the Hellenisation of the Eastern Mediterranean was a much more violent imposition than similar Roman incursions and its maintenance often more bloody.

I agree with much of what jj said, but please remember that the Rape of the Sabine Women is fiction or mythology if you prefer.

With regard to American cultural imperialism, there is much that is truly abhorrent and the way it is marketed no less so ; but America has given us three of the greatest cultural treasures of the 20th Century, cinema, popular music and Desiree Cousteau.

I apologise for being a bore, but historical academia has given me my career.

ps The 'Circumlution Office' was the Dickensian name for the Patents Office in Little Dorrit.

WillieBo wrote:



SNIP

With regard to American cultural imperialism, there is much that is truly abhorrent and the way it is marketed no less so ; but America has given us three of the greatest cultural treasures of the 20th Century, cinema, popular music and Desiree Cousteau.


SNIP


"Cinema" was alive and well in France many years before the first US made film!

Music has, pretty much, always been popular! The first "popular" music stars were composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, Pucini, etc., all of whom were encouraged by one monarch or another to join their court such was the "popularity" they could bring to the reign.

As for Desiree Cousteau.... I trust you will conceed that the name, at least, is French! )

Oh yes, we all rush to see those great Lumiere brothers' films, don't we ? It was Hollywood that made the first great silent classics and produced actors with enormous worldwide popularity. Check out the reaction across the globe to the Fairbanks-Pickford world tour.

The rise of the studio system encouraged and financed film-making around the world. No Hollywood, no film industry as we know it. No vhs or dvd for you to watch your porn on. To deny American cinema its rightful place in modern culture betrays a blinkered view unmatched since Vince the Vole bestrode the cartoon universe in 'Deputy Dawg'.

As regards the poularity of Mozart and Beethoven, their favour at various courts did not mean their universal popularity. Far from it, if you know anything of the life of Mozart. Puccini was popular as a composer of opera, given the narrow confines of that genre's reach. By 'popular music' I don't mean those in the classical sphere that may or may not sell well now ; I mean that music and song standards created and made largely by Americans throughout the first half of the 20th Century (Gerhwin, Kern, Berlin, Porter, Rodgers and Hart et al) to the wellspring that was early RnB and Rock and Roll.

Whether you agree that Americans and their culture are a 'good thing' (per Sellers and Yeatman), I'd defy anyone to deny their predominant place in the last century's arts.

And if I may..

'While the Roman empire was the stronger of the two, it had a counter-balance in the form of the Egyptian empire. The British had rivals in the shape of firstly Spain, then France then Germany.'

Egypt was never a threat to Rome. Spain in the 16th Century was stronger and had a greater empire than anyone else in Europe. England was not particularly pwerful at the time. They began to run out of steam strenght and money with the efforts of the counter-Reformation and the wars of Spanish Succession in the 17th Century.. The Armada defeat hardly place us at the top of the 'don't fuck with us league'. The French could never make up the ground Britain gained with their reconaissance in foreign waters and industrialisation at home. Germany (and in particular Hitler) always had a fancy that their would be two great imperial powers in the world : Germany and Britain.