Resist Monoculture

Exhibit 6: Santa Fe, New Mexico. The local native american craftsmen are invited, for one weekend a year, to exhibit their wares on the main tourist drag. This is called "indian market." At indian market you see a lot of RC Gorman esque oils of beautiful indian weomen, succulent bunches of red or green chile, pink Cyotes howling at the moon, etc. Very, very commercial, bland, rootless stuff (or is it?). The people who buy this shlock aren't locals; by and large they are baptist tourists from Texas. These Native Americans have held onto their culture and tradition, but it has been reduced (by capitalism? by themselves?) to bland mimicry of the 'real' thing. It seems there is no stopping the influence of monoculture and capitalism. Better to engage actively with the issues of the day-to accept them, to a degree-To accept the fact that on the reservation, people have TV's RV's and HBO, and sometimes drink too much, and are sometimes addicted to heroin, than to blindly ignore these realities of contemporary life. You can't tune out 'America'...when your'e living in the middle of it.

A couple of distinctions: one thing Japan does (because it can) is nick a lot of its culture from France. France is more cute, more feminine, more gourmet, more reassuring as a template for the rebuilding of Tokyo than New York is. So for every DoCoMo Tower (modelled on the Chrysler Building) you get several French-style chateaux and about a hundred 'french' cafes and bakeries. When it comes to cultural exports, the Americans may be ahead on brute marketing, but the French are still ahead on charm.

Secondly, you have to distinguish between two nationalisms. There's the nationalism which discriminates against poor immigrants and people of other races. That's obviously fascist and bad. Then there's the nationalism which attempts to block power and imperialism. This latter is the nationalism of Cuba, of Vietnam, of Japan when it was closed to the west (until Admiral Perry came with his gunboats to demand trade). This we should see as a constructive nationalism.

Koizumi's shrine gesture may have been the latter or it may have been the former, I don't know. I just liked how he wasn't doing a Tony Blair: commissioning focus groups and research teams (not to mention sounding out the editor of the Mail) to know what middle England wanted him to do -- and then still being afraid to act.

If I remember correctly, should Koizumi have chosen to visit Yusukuni tomorrow, the 15th, all World Stage hell would have broken loose. And this is not a man immune to focus groups: the Yusukuni visit was a thank-you gesture to a right-wing component of the coalition which put him in office. Still, he's marginally better on this front than Mori, the madhead the Japanese had before...

A world without cultural pride would indeed be a sad one. My cultural pride as a Euro-Nippo-Scot Mac OS-dwelling dung beetle (or whatever I am) is in the ring with the cultural pride of the nice men who are exporting Marlboro and Starbucks, denim and Hollywood all over the world because they genuinely think it's better than what's already out there.

Cultural protectionism has a role to play. It's when people say 'Thanks but no thanks' to the Marlboro man. It's as simple as 'I know when to go out / I know when to stay in, get things done'. Cultures, like individuals, need to know when to submit, to let other cultures set their agendas (developing nations thinking a dose of the American Dream might do them good) and when it's better stay home with the doors locked and do something creative, emerging the next day with something that might just take the world by storm (think of the Japanese guy who scribbled Pokemon on a PostIt note and, shortly afterwards, beat Disney Corp. at its own game).

The counter-nationalisms — which are for bad reasons as well as good complicit in their own resistance of trade openings — are etiolated, inward, brittle cultures. Cuba is tired; Vietnam capitulated; N.Korea HAH!!; isolationist Japan lurched through a series of proto-fascist horrors, which losing WW2 freed it from... (losing world wars = good for business and cultural health?)

[I so much shouldn't be spending time thinking abt this this morning!! respect my dealines ppl!! talk boring subjects for JUST ONE DAY! Sport = urgent and key till my Wire feature is finished and delivered]

Huge corporate combines — microsoft somewhat aside, and see what happened there? — have sidestepped their immolation and scapegoating by being vast and diffuse, NOT ultra-controlled and centralist (not that capitalism is centralist anyway); above all, not contradiction-free. They are no more monolithic than nations.

Third world war = war between pepsi and coke

Hmm.

I've always been interested in Japan. Sang about it in the first song I wrote, aged 7, 'I Can See Japan'. Why? Maybe because of a holiday on the Hebridean island of Colonsay where I met a Japanese monk. Had a Japanese penfriend at 16. Immersed myself in Japanese style and art through the 80s, first visited in 1992. Been back six times since then. Never learnt the language. (Read someone the other day saying 'I loved Japan until I learned the language and understood it. Now I hate it.' It's a good excuse for laziness, anyway!)

Why do I like it? Because it's the most 'different' place I've ever been, and I love difference. Because it has this weird formality, this cute formalism. Because it's a sci-fi blend of the middle ages and the future. Because the girls are sweeter than Kate and Ally. Because the Japanese are black belt passive aggressive geniuses at seeming to absorb other people's cultures when in fact making them into something totally, freakishly different.

I'm also sort of bothered by the undemocratic nature of the argument. It's certainly sad that Western/American culture is exerting this dominance based not on its value but solely its technological prowess. But on the other hand: do you really want to deny those Mongolians their satellite dishes and MTV? Isn't it somewhat patronizing to tell them what they should be doing with their culture?

I'd also note that plenty of nations have done exactly what you seem to be advocating; the Marxist government in Ethiopia, for example, sunk a surprising portion of its budget into cultural training, rounding up young people and drilling them through traditional music, dance, and literature. But I get the feeling that if you, Momus, were one of those people -- if your municipal authority had handed you a kilt and bagpipes and drilled you to preserve your culture -- you'd probably have been muttering "fascism" under your breath.

Also, walk at your own pace and never presume. And avoid the chains at all costs unless you're really hungry. ;-)

Keep in mind I've also just read John Prebble's _The Highland Clearances_, which made me want to go back in time and punch a slew of people very hard, and which ended with the line 'the tartan is now a shroud.' Too true, really.

Not based on the Japanese girls I know; indeed most that I talk to would be offended that you even said this, not just Japanese- Americans but actual immigrants. They all dislike the Geisha Girl stereotype that so many American male tourists and immigrants seem to uphold so religiously.

Quite frankly, the very idea that by accepting other cultures into your own culture somehow destroys the "native" culture is appalling to me. America itself is not one set culture; if you can't see that and you just point, hysterical Nicky Wire style, at jeans and Coke and Independce Day-style films as "Americana" taking over the world, then there is little I can do for you to explain how the situation is vastly more complex than that. It's an insult to your own country, Momus, to sit there and talk about how homogenous and destructive the culture is when it's the most diverse nation, statistically, in the entire world.

(OK I know what you meant. But hey - statistically, was the old Soviet Union more diverse than the USA? It certainly seems to have split into a lot of different bits.)

Soviet Union was extremely diverse, nationalistically. I think for purposes of argument though, it's best to discuss racial diversity than the sort of diversity found in areas like that. The racial makeup of the former Soviet nations is not that distinct from one another and the cultural differences, while definitely there and definitely a source of conflict and issues for the unified republic, are not as stark and easy to define as the easily sorted out differences between, say, the Japanese and Hispanics.

That's precisely my point, Ned -- if you assume that to be an adequate level of regional culture, then Momus' question becomes entirely ridiculous, doesn't it? If one thinks that Scottish culture is still reasonably and uniquely Scottish, then what's the fuss about a couple of satellite dishes in Mongolia? I sense the typical Western fetishizing going on here: we should be very interested in their culture; they should be disdainful of ours, despite its ridiculously high standard of living being very obviously preferable. I don't understand how Momus can cry "monoculture!" when he sees Japanese kids wearing Levis and eating McDonalds, but fail to recognize his own attempted assimilation into that culture.

It's everything to do with a sort of wrong-headed approach that views non-Western culture as somehow prized or "exotic" or different, and thus worthy of being saved of our influence. But the fact remains that we are the exotics -- if there is any "monoculture" right now, it is that of mainland China or Hindu India, period. Those are the two biggest segments of Earth's population, and it's somewhat laughable to imagine that our way of living could ever subsume a significant portion of theirs.

Aspects of American culture: jazz = poly- cultural, rock = polycultural, disco and IDM = polycultural, cinema = polycultural, TV = er, um, yeah, cuz like there's demons and vamps AND ppl in buffy, right?

I tht they were ALL like this (cept sometimes shorter?) Apart from the frckin' deadline, excuse me...

But if you look at it that way, suddenly you have a tiny number of over-priviledged Westerners claiming that the very system that makes them so over-priviledged shouldn't be extended to the rest of the world. I mean, you don't see any massive uprising of Mongolians rejecting satellite dishes and CNN Asia, do you? Only middle-class Westerners complaining about it.

So I'm not sure we're in a position to tell the world "Our system is bad; honestly, you don't want it." A good portion of the world does want it, as a look at immigration rates will support.

Not that I'm defending WTO or IMF policy, but ... Last month, for instance, the World Bank committed to sink millions of dollars into a Nile basin development project -- mainly for hydroelectric power and pollution reduction. Who else is going to do that? Canadian anarchists?

This is the Thomas Friedman line, and it's bullshit. Several reasons: large scale armed conflict a la WWI&II post-bomb is almost unthinkable. The whole nature of warfare has changed and what we have now is "low-intensity conflict", which isn't just limited to the balkans and mid-east: American planes are bombing Iraq as I write this. Also any large scale American military action post-vietnam would immediately render the internal situation in the country almost unmanageable (the largest ever single anti-war protest in Am. history took place 2 days BEFORE the Gulf War) (this is also verified by declassified SC documents). So the Corporations and "Free Marketiers" (which is a huge misnomer if there ever was one) cry victory while having little if negligible to do with it.

Second, the amount of repression, murder, poverty, and disease which is propogated by the corporations who are bringing us all this wonderful freedom from war. Saro-Wiwa, East Timor, Phillipines, PCUN, patents blocking affordable meds... do I really need to go on?

If the whole world was America, we'd still have the system that allows the super-rich and justifies the super-abuse of the super-poor.

And even if you do think so, don't you think it's somewhat presumptuous to tell that to whole nations worth of people who have already decided that their best shot at stability, safety, and progress is through economic modernisation?

"However many Chinese or Hindu Indians there are in the world, they don't have the resources or the will to export their cultures to the rest of us." Can you say "takeaway", Momus? They have; they did.

I will address the meds question tho, since it's tangentially related. Whether disease kills more than starvation depends on the situation, but globally enforced patents are doing untold damage to many native populations (just ask Doctors w/o Borders and the WHO). This is esp. vile, considering the way many companies establish their patents: they go into these 3rd-world countries, remove samples of medicinal plants which have been part of that culture's heritage for countless years, isolate their effective compounds in lab tests, patent these, then make it illegal for the people they stole it from to continue making their own medications. This is completely inexcusable and not at all related to various "modernizing" efforts which might actually help people.

http://nova.luux.net/cera/pics/arguing.jpg

Hope that worked...

In the meantime, I think that basic economic development does not *as an automatic matter of course* create a space for safe democracy. That strikes me as a universal conclusion drawn out by observing a specific example only.

What kind of impractical sentimentalist shite is this?

Coming soon: The Momus® Global Culture Zoo™.

Of course this whole argument is very patronising to the people involved, so whatever.

I think the problem with seeing America as the only melting pot is a problem with the idea of representation itself. America, to some (Mark? Suzy?) is 'licensed to globalise' based on the argument 'All civilisations have had their chance to make their mark on the US, and now we're exporting a gift selection of the best of them: pizza from Italy, the German hamburger, denim from Nimes...'

But does New York's Little Italy 'represent' Italy? I love Commedia del Arte, for instance, but see precious little of it on Mulberry Street. I see even fewer pictures of Gramsci. Which is fair enough, since most American Italians left the old country before about 1920. America has always 'represented' the rest of the world in an odd way. 'Give me your poor, your hungry, your homeless...' says Liberty, but she could just as easily say 'Give me your cranky religious minorities, your Bible bashers, your mercantile untouchables...'

There are models of pluralism other than the American one. How about the internet, how about the UN (which the US regularily vetoes, not being particularily attached to the idea of universal human rights when they conflict with the idea of universal trade)? How about getting the US and UK back into UNESCO, which they huffed out of in 1984 and 1985 respectively? How about any sort of commitment at all to the idea that other cultures have the right to 'think different'?

US and UK planes continue to attack Iraq as I write. The BBC reports: 'Four days ago dozens of US and British planes carried out the heaviest raids against Iraq by coalition forces for six months.' 'The world's policeman' sometimes seems to be saying to 'states of concern': 'It's very simple: Coke or bombs. Pepsi or napalm.' (But not, alas, 'cigarettes or Momus'.)

Apart from Nude Spock's thinly-veiled shit-stirring, I agree with most of what has been said on this thread. Even Dave Q gets it right, for once, in this case about the excessive over-earnest anti- Americanism of a certain kind of (misguided) ultra-leftie, and I like his self-depreciating touches.

Ethos of "Basket of Light" by the Pentangle = embryonic (hatched at The Epoch) Brit-specific starting point of ethos of Folktronic = who are we / what do we connect with / what kind of cultural biodiversity do we believe in? Craftmanship in the electronic age, and the latter as something to strengthen (or at very least not detract from) the former. Disconnection as something to celebrate, but also a chance to suggest alternative structures without heading to Ecoforest hell.

"Looking interesting for cosmopolitan popsingers" sez Graham: hmmm, Momus is a traveller, and a fast one, but that doesn't mean he only sees the surface: he gives the impression of caring for the entire structures of these societies, and his whole ethos (like mine) is that there are other pluralisms than America's. Most of his posts in this thread have been exemplary, to my mind.

Why should it? Can Little Italy not be its own culture, or is the idea of separate American groups having their own separate cultures and traditions too much for you to handle? Perhaps if they wore hand- stitched peasant clothes while walking the streets...

I'm sorry if this is sarcasm but I fail to see why varied American cultures should "represent" any other culture besides the one that it is. Is Chinatown a replica of China? No? Well, is it wholly distinct from the culture of Loisada? Yes? Thanks.

I do think Nick is doing that White Boy thing of viewing non-Western/ rural cultures through rose-tinted glasses, while making fun of Goa- pilgrimage hippies for doing essentially the same thing. Do Mongolian women, for example, really want to sit there in a yurt stitching tunics and telling folk-tales when their newspapers and televisions are filled with enticing (for them) tales of cities, technology and The New? Protect them, you say? Forsooth, sir, your chivalry astounds me.

It just looks to me that they're being human and fallible in their desire for glamour or a different experience to that of their upbringing, something nobody here could possibly understand, oh no. For example, if Nick had stayed rigidly true to his own upbringing/culture he'd be living in Scotland as an academic, punctuating the competition for tenure with duff wine'n'cheese parties, August in the Med and clandestine affairs with undergrads ;). Yawn-o.

The thing is, you're forgetting something about kids in Japan (and everywhere) and the world's young economies. Tell them that something (Sony recording artist Janet Jackson, denim, drugs, whatever) is BAD, VERY BAD and they'll soon want nothing else. Tell them something's good (weaving, trad culture, muesli, whatever) and they'll soon want nothing less.

Sorry, I hadn't read it. I have read it now and I still can't make much of it, though. ;-)

1) Why is America being viewed as a monoculture? Are the various cultures of different states, regions, ethnic groups, religious groups, cultural groups, and even sections within the same city all monologuous to one another? Is Chinatown not a separate culture from the South Bronx? What does "American" mean other than Momus's still Nicky-Wireish insistance that America = Evil Capitalist Coca Cola.

2) Why can't cultures evolve and add aspects of other cultures as necessary? Why is it "better" to not have any contact with the Western world, or vice versa? Should cultures be self-contained entities untouched by others or should they expand and include other cultures? Does including another culture somehow "kill" your own native culture? If so, are we saying that, for example, American Indians are now cultureless because they have been filled with "American (TM Momus)" culture?

Where were you born?________________
Where were your parents born? mother:________________ father:__________________
Where was your lover/spouse born?________________
What is your religious preference?_______________
What is your lover/spouse's religious preference? _______________
Where do you currently live? __________________
What food do you eat?_______________
How would you describe your style of dress?____________________
Who's your favorite living performer? ________________
Who's your favorite dead performer? ________________
To which political parties do you belong or identify with?_________________
How much money do you make? __________________

Ever notice how America's constituent minorities ignore each other at best, living in effectively segregated parts of town, rarely interdating or intermarrying? The Italian-Americans in Little Italy say of the Chinese-Americans just one street away: 'They're dirty. They're trying to lower this place to the level of the third world...'. Calling Americaphobia 'the smart person's racism' just doesn't wash.

It's a long jump from saying 'American culture is not monolithic, it contains parts of Italy, look at pizza' to saying American culture is not destroying whole tracts of other cultures and replacing them with something inferior. And it's racist to assume nobody out there cares about that, or ever will.

Jesus Christ...my family lived in Little Italy for ages, extended family I mean. No one ever acted like that, they had way too much spillage into each other's areas to pull much shit like that.

Quite frankly, Momus, you just seem to have a vast problem with Italian-Americans judging by a couple of posts now. What the hell? If anything, I always found Little Italy to be MORE inclusive of other cultures than Chinatown (meaning the LI and Chinatown of the '80s, not the current ones, since LI basically doesn't exist anymore).

I'm with Ally on this one, and frankly if we are going to boil down to specifics like Italian Americans I know who I trust.

What Suzy says is all quite true, but I don't think Momus is doing the "act authentic for me" line: isn't Folktronic full of sharp and clever swipes at those for whom "other" cultures amount to this and this alone? Having said that I agree that Momus has (or has in the past seemed to have) more problem with hippiedom than he should considering how much he has in common with it, and that's not a diss in my book: Richard Thompson when he was in Fairport Convention (see "Mock Tudor" thought passim) had more in common with Folktronic than he had with the early 60s puritan socialist reading of British folk which *was* an act-authentic, resist-all-modernity slant. Hippie-inspired folk-rock was no such thing: Momus should have seen that well before he seemed to in February this year.

The idea that Momus is into heritage culture (Dave Q's implication) is to me ludicrous. Heritage culture, for me, is secretaries in July 1985 re-enacting medieval battles at Lincoln Castle as a break from listening to Gary Davies playing "We Close Our Eyes" by Go West (no doubt there was / is a US equivalent, and there is certainly a contemporary UK equivalent). It's pure Middle Britain / America (but *especially* mid-80s provincial Britain), pure standard-issue middlebrow leisure pursuit. It is not, to my mind, what Momus is doing, which is more a celebration (with innumerable question marks and ambivalences) of diversity and pluralism. I doubt whether he'd be into cultures that are *not* "living and breathing".

If "culture" is being defined to exclude food then that kind of culture will die, and probably deserves to.

The traffic of peoples is of course two way. Mongolian Culture is moving INTO America, where it is required to protect itself and adapt to its neighbours; of course also change somewhat — but actually mainly calculate how and what it needs to do to survive the coming torrent back home of a million heritage-hungry Momuses, fleeing just a step ahead of the shadow of the ever-spreading American boundaryline. The alternative is to end all travel by anyone.

The UN and internet versions of bio-diversity are both of course elements in AMERICAN poly-culture (first currently paid for by CNN, run by new yorkers; second largely funded by American military)

"Peter Hitchens-isation (ie local equiv) of Ulan Bator" sez Mark ...

I may not have thought this out properly, but have you actually *read* his earlier thoughts on all this stuff, Mark? If so, I doubt whether you'd say he was "heritage-hungry". He is interested in diversity, but his approach has always struck me as the virtual definition of fusionist. If any of his writings support total cultural isolation or "the end of travel", I'd like to be directed to them, because I don't think I've found them yet.

I don't like the de facto segregation of American towns and cities either; I suspect the shift to not giving a shit about who your neighbours/lovers 'are' will occur when our parents' generation becomes too senile to have an opinion about this matter (they're great on equal rights in civic and work terms, not so great on my son/daughter is fucking the Other-related issues).As the century progresses people are going to spend time worrying more about class-based differences than any other type, if the money talks, ephemera walks ethos of the monoculture takes over. That'll be the real reason the monoculture sucks.

One thing Britain has going for it (recent kerfuffles in Lancashire aside) is the extraordinary mix of ethnicities in neighbourhoods. By and large, people get on with their neighbours here. This tallies with the huge amount of cross-ethnic, mixed-race couples there are here. It's not about getting a bit of the submissive/well-hung Other here, it's about meeting someone you like.

I like being able to go to food shops and ask the Italian, Thai, Japanese, Indian/Bengali or Chinese owners which of the products they'd actually use in their own cooking and how they do it. If I spend time with people from/originating familially from those places, I don't tell my other friends what Wise Traditions my friends' families have because I find it slightly patronising (it sounds too much like those people who say Some Of Their Best Friends Are Ethnic). I don't often wear 'ethnic' clothes, but when I do at bloody least I know what the garments are about, if it's monkwear or something I'd never wear it.

travel and cultural encounter is good, and fusion is wehat happens when ppl meet and don't immediately kill each other, but it has consequences: if there WERE a million momuses wd this better or worse?

what i think is ODD is that you robin and nude spock are both saying MOMUS I AGREE, but I don't any of the three of you are saying anything like the same thing as one another, esp. about the nature of 'american culture"

"Destroying" is inappropriate in that it implies deliberate -- and protested -- attack. The reality is that "whole tracts of other cultures" are happily aspiring to elements of Western culture, of their own volition and without an astounding level of duress.

But mostly you're wrong about "replacing them with something inferior" -- sez who? Says Momus? Your satellite-dishing Mongolians have obviously decided that they prefer watching MTV to embroidering garments, so who are you to contradict them? Given the economic opportunity to join the global "monoculture," they'll most likely do what immigrants to the U.S. do -- spend several generations fretting about maintaining their culture, then gradually work out some new, modern way of living that accommodates both the New and the Old.

So does this lower the overall diversity of global culture? I'm not even convinced of that. You're drawing a big line between "global monoculture" and "traditional culture," without acknowledging the way new cultures emerge from within that "monoculture." You'd have thought that the importation and forced assimilation of slaves in the Americas was a blow against their African culture, right? But instead we have all these seemingly traditional cultures growing out of it: African-American culture, Jamaican culture, Haitian culture, all built on the natural flux of people colliding and changing and finding new ways of living.

And to clarify, I compared all ethnicities to "white" people, effectively saying "it's all the same thing" from ANY angle. Get your cultural elite sign up sheet form I posted above. Thank you, drive through.

Another good thing about multicultural London is you can have proper conversations with friends ie. 'Why do Jamaicans and Bajans feud so much?' without feeling like a total fool. For a while (rad '80s) there was a climate where where it was PC to pretend no difference whatsoever. But how boring it would be if we were all the same.

"(he) can skip away long before the problems arise", you have a point there. In his middle-class international upbringing he was removed from how most people have to live, but at least he takes *interest* in people. The implications of these interests are a matter for us all to discuss, which I don't think anyone (even Nude Spock) is questioning.

"here today he's saying that Dorset should resist all content with the net and Missy Elliott ... if not: what IS he saying?": well, I wouldn't think he was saying the above, if so why would he have responded to my initial embarrassed fanletters as he did? But I think, for many people, there is a double standard between "the West" and "the developing world", and you're fundamentally right to pick up on this. My main point is that there are many many more deserving targets of this general (and well-aimed) attack than Momus himself.

What I think he is saying is that all these interests and knowledges can flow together and that there are other globalisms than mainstream America. Which is fine *BUT*:

"arts-and-crafts hell": my closest involvement with what I think you're referring to here was with Common Ground from whom Momus may well have cribbed the "Resist Monoculture" phrase. And, yes, it didn't last, and, yes, it created great personal stress through bringing my personal contradictions (celebration of your place vs. immersion in the world etc. etc.) right back to the surface. The thought of taking part in its activities while keeping up "me" as he exists on this forum was a great mental concept, but it tore me apart while actually doing it. So I would be inclined to suggest that, for some, this kind of "fusion" makes more sense in logic than in practice. I get the impression that you're accusing Momus's entire position of being pure logic and *looking* at people and not enough of how people actually are and how they *think*: is that right?

"if there WERE a million Momuses would this be better or worse?": there probably couldn't be because even a ballooning middle-class / travelling world couldn't increase to that size. It depends on whether their approach was one of genuine fascination / stimulation or just "look authentic for me": if the latter, which I fear it would be reduced to (many more standard-issue hippies than Momae) than dud.

Aryans haven't existed for thousands of years, whatever your unfriendly neighbourhood white supremacist has to say on the matter.

Momus is the most contradictory person I've encountered (it was, sort of, what originally intrigued me about him) so no wonder Nude Spock and myself can say apparently totally different things yet both seem to Mark S to agree with him.

I think my other question was mh more interesting, but then I would. I like being called a ninny though, it makes me feel like I'm on radio four circa 1950.

Why in the world should Asian people be into Buddha? Okay, lots of people belong to certain religions because their parents and grandparents did, but isn't religion one of the things that really *needs* to be exported? What if the Christians are right and the Buddhists never know because they want to protect their culture, and they do end up going to hell because they never gave Christianity a chance? (I use Christianity as the example because Buddhism isn't as threatening; if you don't accept it, you just get more of the same, but you're not damned to hell for all eternity. Buddhism has helped Westerners, of course, as well, like my WAS[P-ish] father.) I don't see religion as something particular to certain cultures at all, except for tribal gods and the like.

If I spend time with people from/originating familially from those places, I don't tell my other friends what Wise Traditions my friends' families have because I find it slightly patronising (it sounds too much like those people who say Some Of Their Best Friends Are Ethnic).

I do. I spend too much time around my best friend to not find her family's traditions fascinating, and so do my other friends. None of us consider it patronizing.

If a government tried to keep this hazy undefined American monoculture out of a culture, it would make people unhappy because they wouldn't have a choice about what to accept and what to reject. Culture exists to serve people, not vice versa. If people want to change and rebuild their culture and end up with a plastic combination of several influences, fine. It might make them happier. Less "interesting," perhaps, because they wouldn't be as exotic to the observer, but it's not the observer who matters most in this situation.

Are self-empowerment books and seminars the major American philosophical influence?

Funny thing about the term Aryan, is it never meant what it was supposed to mean.

For the pedantic and semantic peoples:
"Aryan" supposedly means (according to Nazi doctrine) "a non-Jewish Caucasian person of Nordic descent".
"White", today, does not mean "Aryan".
"Aryan" does not mean "Nazi", but a "master Aryan race" was what the Nazis stood for (despite Hitler being a Jew and all that).

So, the contradiction I used was intentional and served it's purpose. In effect, the culture of Aryan people was distorted by the act of being overly proud of heritage. This is similar to the St. Patty's Day Parade when everyone becomes Irish or the Puerto Rican day parade where everyone is suddenly PR. Got it? The culture often becomes more important than the individual.

Robin:
My "cultural pride" extends simply to liking bits of "my" history and finding them appealing and sometimes still using them for enjoyment. I certainly wouldn't claim the superiority of this history over anyone else's history. Does that mild historical awareness fall short of or fit into your idea of "racism", Nude Spock?-- Robin Carmody (robin@elidor.freeserve.co.uk), August 15, 2001.

No, of course not!

Why in the world should Asian people be into Buddha?

Well, only the Asian people that were brought up to believe in Buddha, I meant. Why? Because it makes more sense, for one thing. Finding peace on the inside because it's your own choice certainly makes more sense than doing the right thing simply because you fear a loving, murderous, jealous godhead.

Okay, lots of people belong to certain religions because their parents and grandparents did, but isn't religion one of the things that really *needs* to be exported?

No, and that's my point. Christianity was forced on people all over the world.

What if the Christians are right and the Buddhists never know because they want to protect their culture, and they do end up going to hell because they never gave Christianity a chance?

Ah, but what if they don't? And this is all part of a Christian monoculture, isn't it? Would Christianity be so strong today if it didn't have a history of using force?

I don't see religion as something particular to certain cultures at all, except for tribal gods and the like.

Hmmm, well, religion is one of the things that creates the morals of a culture, whether the inhabitants are primitive voodoo cultures or not. It's a political force in most, if not all, societies.

You shouldn't believe in what you were brought up to believe in. You should believe in what you think is right and fits with the world. If this brings you peace, that's wonderful. If it doesn't, I still say that it's more important to believe what is right than to believe what makes you feel good, or what is traditional.

Christianity was forced on people all over the world.

You can't assume everyone who's Christian is Christian because it was forced on them from childhood or by missionaries! It is often a conscious, aware choice to adopt a religion. The church's actions over the centuries are separate, in my mind, from its theological points. I think that every religious system should be spread, discussed, and understood by as many people as possible. Otherwise how will people know what will help them best?

And this is all part of a Christian monoculture, isn't it? Would Christianity be so strong today if it didn't have a history of using force?

No, of course it wouldn't, just like Islam (fastest-growing religion in the world). Would Buddhism be stronger if it had a history of using force? Probably. That doesn't change the value or accuracy of the religion and its worldview themselves, though. I detect an anti- Christian bias in your statements, which is probably due to Christianity's history. I am not speaking of the Catholic church, Protestant churches, or any churches at all, and I'm not talking about history; I'm talking about the doctrines at the heart of a religion. Why should any religion be prevented from spreading?

Hmmm, well, religion is one of the things that creates the morals of a culture, whether the inhabitants are primitive voodoo cultures or not. It's a political force in most, if not all, societies.

Yes. That is true. I see religion as an individual choice, probably because of my nonreligious upbringing, but in many cultures it is different. If you have a choice, though, why shouldn't you make your own?

Spock: "Because it makes more sense, for one thing. Finding peace on the inside because it's your own choice certainly makes more sense than doing the right thing simply because you fear a loving, murderous, jealous godhead."

Welcome to the New Improved World, in which Momus gets to decide what Mongolians should wear and Spock gets to decide what religion "makes more sense" for half the world's population. You are both talking like missionaries.

You should believe in what you think is right and fits with the world. If this brings you peace, that's wonderful. If it doesn't, I still say that it's more important to believe what is right than to believe what makes you feel good, or what is traditional.
A:The problem with that is "what you believe is right" is a learned "fact" in this case and "facts" are rarely true. They are one view of reality. Buddhism is more logical than Christianity if it is truly understood, however Christianity is easier to understand because it's motivating factor is primitive: fear. Whether or not Christianity makes any sense is irrelevant. There is a literal fire under your ass to do the "right" thing. Also note: Christianity doesn't seem to bring peace historically.

You can't assume everyone who's Christian is Christian because it was forced on them from childhood or by missionaries!
A: Christianity appears to be real because it has a history. For many, this is enough. When you are down in the dumps, religion is sometimes necessary to bring you back up. Sometimes religion just gives your life a purpose. People often CHOOSE Christianity because it is simply THERE to choose. Why is Christianity an option everywhere you look? Let's just say at one point, Christianity had a great marketing department.

You should believe what you want to believe. Who gives a damn who was brought up with it? What is so wrong with Asians being Christian?

A:The problem with that is "what you believe is right" is a learned "fact" in this case and "facts" are rarely true. They are one view of reality. Buddhism is more logical than Christianity if it is truly understood, however Christianity is easier to understand because it's motivating factor is primitive: fear. Whether or not Christianity makes any sense is irrelevant. There is a literal fire under your ass to do the "right" thing. Also note: Christianity doesn't seem to bring peace historically.

You're being disgustingly patronizing and making things too simple. Buddhism is "more logical" than Christianity when you disregard all teachings about gods, reincarnation, and karma, in which case it has no supernatural aspects and is a philosophical system based completely on observation. The nature of Christianity precludes that; however, that doesn't mean it's wrong! I see no proof for the existence of God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. If some Christian philosopher can convince me logically that the religion is correct, or if I get some divine revelation, I will certainly convert, but I can't expect everyone else to see things the same way. It is based as much on faith as on logic, and you can have faith no matter what culture you come from.

In explaining mind, thought, and conscience, Christianity is actually simpler than Buddhism.

When I say "believe what is right," I do not mean in a moral, good way. I mean in a way that recognizes that A is A, the universe is what it is, that God exists, that God does not exist, that it doesn't matter one way or another whether God exists, but that things have a specific nature. I would not become Christian out of fear or hope, but because the Christian worldview seems correct. After that, I would try to obey the rules out of a desire to save my own skin, but not until then. You *can't* have the fear of hell until you actually accept the worldview. It does matter whether it makes sense or not.

You're being disgustingly patronizing and making things too simple. Buddhism is "more logical" than Christianity when you disregard all teachings about gods, reincarnation, and karma, in which case it has no supernatural aspects and is a philosophical system based completely on observation. The nature of Christianity precludes that; however, that doesn't mean it's wrong!
No, what makes Christianity "wrong" are the contradictions within the bible. The teachings of Jesus do not reflect the actions of "God". Also, God is very imperfect for such a perfect God.

In explaining mind, thought, and conscience, Christianity is actually simpler than Buddhism.
Simplicity is not the key. Occam's razor doesn't apply here.

When I say "believe what is right," I do not mean in a moral, good way. I mean in a way that recognizes that A is A
Often in nature, A is not A while being A at the same time. Zen is pretty good about pointing that out. Christianity is not. It has many contradictions, but this is different.

As for actual problems in the Bible, I'm not Christian, I know very little about it, and I don't really care anymore. The argument was about whether people descended from non-Christian cultures can convert.

This is what I mean: choose the system that agrees with your own view. If you believe that A is always A, you are more likely to belong to a Western religion or philosophy like Christianity. If you believe that often in nature A is not A while being A at the same time, go for Zen.

1) "American culture" is pluralist and made up of many immigrant and native subcultures. We (americans) all participate in these everyday. However, these are not what is exported to the rest of the world. Ulan Bator doesn't get Little Italy, it gets McDonald's/Starbucks/Microsoft. I believe this is what Momus meant in his original post.

2)Whether this McDonald's/Starbucks/Microsoft juggernaut is desired by the people it's pushed on was dealt with very well in another post Momus made. I'll repeat the relevant part here because nobody (or at least Nitsuh and mark s, who directly address the question) seems to have read it:

Development' goes in phases.

1. Intoxication with images of affluence.

2. Ruthless modernisation of national fabric (in Bangkok they concreted in all the little rivers that used to vein the city to make roads for cars).

3. Disillusionment with the western model (gridlock, pollution -- suddenly the Bangkok authorities realise that not only were the old boats faster than jammed cars, but they pulled in more tourists, and tourism is the number one industry in Thailand.)

4. The city is rebuilt in a cleaned-up, de-historified, filtered, Disney-friendly version of national style. London Bridge and the Palace of Nonesuch appear again, like phoenixes from the ash of English memory. But of course it's all plastic. The cultural DNA has been cloned rather than kept alive by continuous breeding. Difference has been preserved in order to attract the tourist dollar. Cities become simulacra. When bits of cornice break off the neo-Elizabethan facades, the people who fix them are film special effects bods, not craftsmen.

This isn't speculation or nostalgia on Momus's part, you can actually see it happening. I think it's one of the most interesting points yet made and I wish people would acknowledge it before making grand assumptions about whether Mongolians "really want" MTV, since I assume no one here lives in Mongolia.

There's also the question of whether 3rd world countries really want these things for their "cultural value" or are simply willing to trade culture for the money these things will bring to their embattled economies.

Tracer & Robin, godspeed! Excellent posts! "Local" vs. "absentee" is great terminology in which to continue the discussion, especially since tracer actually cites evidence (Univision, Poe's observations) for what he's talking about!

So call bullshit on me if you want, but I've seen very little here suggesting anyone is isolationist. Accusing anyone of it is thus a highly reactionary stance. Ok, there's my piece for now.

As far as A being not A, waves are particles and people who say racist things are not racists. Energy and matter change, just as do people. Ohm!

still seems to me the swiftest over-broad summary of yr argt is that one of the better defences against export of (un)American monobloc corporatist whatever wd be something like the active fostering everywhere of ACTUALLY EXISTING American-style pluralism (inc.free speech, constitution guaranteeing life, liberty. pursuit of happiness, religious freedom blah blah blah). Did Momus or anyone else come up with a better (practical = political) suggestion? I have lost track.

You are so arrogant in that you think your point is clear when it becomes murkier the harder you try. Why don't you admit that your whole concept of 'Aryan' is screwed up? What "Aryan" culture has been "distorted"?
"Aryan" culture was distorted when it was adopted by the Nazis.

Fact is, you compared white ethnics to white supremacists - this is a fact, and you're too arrogant to acknowledge it.
I did acknowledge that. That was my point! The term Aryan has nothing to do with Nazi culture or white people, yet it represents both. The culture is more important than the individual when the individual doesn't even have to be Aryan to be a member. Now, that's distorted, ain't it? I guess you're too stupid to notice it?

I wish you'd just shut up.
So, which is it, love? Shut up or "admit" things and "acknowledge" things. Uhh, no you shut up. Mommy!

Accepting Zen on faith is similar, but it makes more logical sense.

What's that supposed to mean? Accepting Zen on faith makes more logical sense than accepting Christianity on faith? Accepting anything on faith means that it's NOT based on logical sense.

Also, choosing your parents hand-me-down religion over a newer one is not some superior choice. It seems logical, though, that if you were brought up a certain way to believe certain things, God can't fault you and send you to hell. It seems that a loving God would understand where you're coming from if you never believed in hell in the first place. Of course, this is the fear of Christianity, isn't it?

I can't imagine that God would send anyone to hell for not having heard of Christianity. If someone rejects Christianity for the sake of tradition, or because he thinks it is wrong (and these are two very different reasons!), that's a conscious choice and a different matter entirely. If someone never hears Christian doctrines because someone else high up thought they didn't want the Christian monoculture to infest their way of life, that's tyrannical and unjust. I thought free exchange of ideas was a higher value than forced cultural preservation, and that is my entire problem with the "Asians should be Buddhists" idea.

Accepting Zen on faith is similar, but it makes more logical sense. What's that supposed to mean? Accepting Zen on faith makes more logical sense than accepting Christianity on faith?
A:No, Zen, the religion makes more logical sense than Christianity, the religion. Zen is more consistent and has only intentional contradictions that add to the ideas represented.

Accepting anything on faith means that it's NOT based on logical sense.
A: Right, and that's why I didn't say that. I can see how you interpreted it that way. However, in the next breath I went on to say that taking your parents views ON FAITH vs. adopting someone else's views ON FAITH is not a superior decision. In fact, it's the same thing.

I can't imagine that God would send anyone to hell for not having heard of Christianity.
A:Yet, this is the fear of Christianity. In the bible it says this! That is why people spread the word of God, often trying to grab your attention with pamplets that say "HELL" in large letters.

If someone rejects Christianity for the sake of tradition, or because he thinks it is wrong (and these are two very different reasons!), that's a conscious choice and a different matter entirely. If someone never hears Christian doctrines because someone else high up thought they didn't want the Christian monoculture to infest their way of life, thaêÎŒs tyrannical and unjust. I thought free exchange of ideas was a higher value than forced cultural preservation, and that is my entire problem with the "Asians should be Buddhists" idea.
A:Well, that's simply because you misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm not saying Asians should be anything. I was merely offering up the idea of a barely-English speaking Asian person handing out pamphlets that read "HELL" as an example of the spreading monoculture, which is what this thread is about, lest we forget. Personally, I have no religious preference. An order of preference, yes, but they are all shit.

First circle, if I remember my Dante. Including most unfairly people who died BEFORE CHRIST WAS BORN!!

To interject away from the new religious bent of the conversation for a moment: erm, that's exactly how it is in America. I'm assuming that by "cross-ethnic" you don't just mean the stark black-white relationships but the 8 billion other ethnicities in the world as well. As pointed out, neither black nor white are "ethnicities", they are colors with quite a lot of strong variation between them, particularly in the ones labelled "white". I mean, my parents: my mother is a very light skinned Hispanic/Italian first generation immigrant from Queens, my dad 100% Irish second generation from Philly. Is this not ethnic mixing? Or because they both look white is it not? I am, obviously, Hispanic/Italian/Irish. My boyfriend is Israeli/Russian/French. Is that not ethnic mixing? My roommate is German/Irish, her last boyfriend was Puerto Rican - that's less Ethnicities involved but because they looked starkly different, does that make it more of an ethnic mixing than either of the other two examples? The receptionist at my workplace is Italian/Irish/Cuban, but her husband is 100% Cuban - at what point does it become ethnic mixing?

These are just general questions, not an attack on anyone. It's why I get so irritated with people who are so offended by "interracial dating" - unless both sides of your family are 100% one ethnicity, like you are 100% Irish and married to a 100% Irish person, then you're doing it too. And quite frankly "pure bloodlines" are bad ideas anyhow, ethnic mixing is best to create a stronger species.

If we're just going to boil down race to white/black/hispanic in America and not justify the differences and use that as "proof" that the US doesn't intermix cultures and ethnicities, then why should we discuss the difference between "Aryan" and "white" at all?

Besides, all I see in NYC are mixed couples. This is obviously very skewed from, say, middle America but there you go.

In terms of this religious stuff, I see no reason why the Chinese can't be Christian instead of Buddhist, just as I see no problem with Westerners converting to Buddhism. Speaking as a former Buddhist AND someone who is vehemently against the Christian religion as an institution.

You shouldn't adopt someone else's views instead of your parents because you hvae greater faith in Western culture, yes; it IS the same thing. But to clarify I'm going to call that accepting views on authority. If you accept someone else's views on faith, like Christianity, that means that you have faith in God, not that you have faith in that person's authority. That is how I use the term.

A:Yet, this is the fear of Christianity. In the bible it says this! That is why people spread the word of God, often trying to grab your attention with pamplets that say "HELL" in large letters.

Okay, here I see an internal inconsistency that I don't understand. It also says that you can speak against Jesus and the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. Disregarding the "unforgivable" bit right now, which is my main problem, couldn't you then not go to hell if you don't blaspheme aganst the Holy Spirit, even if you don't believe in Jesus? (A new thread probably is required. eep.)

I don't think Christianity is part of this monoculture. You have Cokes and McDonald's in Muslim countries. The religious aspect is different entirely, and it's not American. It's European and was spread to America.

I have no religious preference, either.

For pros & cons, let's look at Cuba. Latin & S. America are in horrible shape due to US influence (something else that hasn't been brought up is that where the corporations go, the military follows or clears a path). Cuba, by expelling the military and US-connected upper crust initially raised itself above everyone else: they still have the highest literacy and lowest infant mortality rates of anywhere south of the US border. However, they result is they've felt the wrath of the Big Stick: embargo, mass emigration, poverty, etc. My point being here's a nation 90 miles away who decided they didn't want the monoculture and who have normal bilateral relations w/ the rest of the world driven into the ground by the spawning place of said monoculture. When I look at the rest of the world I often see a similar dynamic but w/o the bull-headedness of a Castro: these places don't really want McDonald's mowing down their forests to make grazing lands, but feel they have little say in the matter.

So the Dung Beetle strategy could work for a place like Japan which has enough economic leverage to be concerned w/ identity and aesthetics as opposed to simple survival. As for Mongolia, you got me. And I'm not sure what the "fostering American style pluralism" thing is about. Oy, I've lost my train of thought so I'll end here.

(I know something like this point has been made and proved up-thread more than once: but I am still suspicious of the claim that oh you'll get Starbucks, but never this. [pointz])

P.S. christianity is as american as apple pie because more Europeans settled here first (not that we have exclusive rights to it or anything).

This is pie in the sky, but here goes: maybe if the rest of the world wants to emulate American-style development, we Americans can set a better example? We've worked through most of the steps Momus outlined, to the point where we're now greatly concerned about our environment and sustainability, the current dicknose in the WH notwithstanding. We have an overdeveloped nostaligic view of Purity and Roots and Authenticity due to the blandness of endless strip malls and highways. So maybe if we stop paving over everything and try to inject some character into the way we design our own landscape, others will follow suit?

Then you likened that excess of pride to racism.
I likened being overly proud of your heritage (race) to racism because it usually IS the case, but I didn't link it to parades in this way. If you are way too proud to be Italian or Jewish it must be because you assume it's better to be so. What other reason would there be to be overly proud of your heritage?? It's true that parades serve a purpose; to stand up and be counted, especially when you're in the minority. Sitting in a bar and yelling about how you're _______ is overly proud. Who cares if you're _________?

Look at your own posts. I can only assume, then, that you are not offended by racism. That last sentence is irony, BTW - I need to point that out to you since I know you won't get it otherwise.

I'm really not offended by racism because it is a reflection of ignorance. I am offended when racism turns to violence because this is a reflection of hate. People can and do change their stripes.

"Aryan" culture was distorted when it was adopted by the Nazis. Oh, I get it now. Any "distorted" culture is bad, because it is "distorted" just like "Aryan" culture was "distorted" by the Nazis.

No, you don't get it. One culture is seperatist from other cultures. My point was that culture means nothing and is not necessary to preserve like endangered species. It is not the culture that is important, but the individual. Even from a historical standpoint, culture is a collection of one-sided "facts".

I think you feel sad that you were so eager to jump on me and too stupid to understand what I was plainly saying and we are now arguing for the mere title of "who's better: me or you?"

I baited for fun, got my fishy and proved my points. Good show!

Ta da, no more fighting.

Culture changes, yes. So, unless you feel you are the embodiment of all your culture is now and has ever been, why hoist it above your head as if it was a trophy? You were simply born into a class, an ethnicity and a situation as was everyone else.

A monoculture would be a good idea in the truest sense; equal opportunity for all, etc. This would be a global culture, not an American one. This would have little to do with McDonald's and Disney taking over the earth. I don't think this ideal monoculture I'm talking about is what Momus was referring to. I believe he was talking about the westernization of the earth is all.

The current "monoculture" is a bad thing not for reasons of fashion, but for the exploitation of weaker cultures, and, like I said, eventually the Haves will hear from the Have-Nots. I don't think the global solution is for everyone to be isolationist within their own cultures, however. But the solution is not the Americanization of the earth, unless some major changes happen.

I'm throwing you back in now, little fishy.

I baited for fun, got my fishy...

I've not been following the argument at all because it's sprawled so much, but from my p.o.v. this sort of thing is about the lamest thing anyone on the Internet can say. And I never believe them.

This is just obnoxious, I'm sorry, I have to stand up. You almost immediately started off with "dimwit" comments towards Kerry. It's just not right, it does come off like some sort of ludicrious ranting when mostly unprovoked and certainly doesn't help you get your point across, and does nothing but fluster the other person involved.

And this "Mexican culture" they were so proud of was not some nostalgic back-to-the-earth nativism, nor was it globalistic futurist cosmopolitanism. It was simply whatever lifestyle they were used to when they left home, which was itself a hybrid fusion of many different influences.

I think my experience illustrates 2 things:

1)it verifies what whoever (sorry can't remember) said above about cultures really only defining themselves when they are placed in opposition to others. This is something which is constantly happening in our interconnected world, so a degree of resistance to foreign ideas should just be expected, and isn't necessarily wrong. It's often a defence against more harmful influences as well as helpful ones. I believe Momus's point was not that we should be isolationists, but that we should be able to discriminate between the various memes we're bombarded with and resist them if we feel it's necessary.

2) There's a more complex dynamic at work here than simply Total liberalization of markets VS Total Taliban-style isolationism. People and cultures have to improvise based on the situation.

I am so glad I grew up in a non-segregationist place, and moved to a different one. Still don't give much currency to what NS is saying, though, and when I left to go to party tons of sense being spoken by Lyra the Board Baby. Nice to see that 16 yr. olds have less than half the issues of those of us who were 16 in the '80s. Progress! Take heart, everyone...

I spent the last year working in a rural community in Oregon that was about 80% Mexican immigrants and 20% racist white people who owned all the businesses and property. The Mexicans as a result had a very strong sense of solidarity brought about by pride in a perceived cultural unity. Their language, cultural traditions, etc. were a bulwark against the poverty and segregation they experienced. I think this gives the lie to the statement "there is no specific reason you should be so damn proud to be from _______."

A: What about the rich Mexicans that OWN Mexico (it's a few families!). They are part of this "mexican culture" as well. These Mexicans cause the shitty conditions that allow American companies to build factories in Mexico, hire people for $1 per hour under extremely hazardous conditions so that these poor Mexicans have just enough money to live at a subhuman level and then the rich Americans can gloat and say, "Well, look, if it wasn't for us, they wouldn't even have what they have now!" This is this GREAT AMERICAN CULTURE that prevails! While the ideals that America was built on are a credit to our forefathers, the system still breaks down to pure greed. The rich exploit the poor so that the Haves continue to Have and the Have-Nots still WANT. If a person was to say that I am part of THIS Western Culture, I'd have to disagree.

And this "Mexican culture" they were so proud of was not some nostalgic back-to-the-earth nativism, nor was it globalistic futurist cosmopolitanism. It was simply whatever lifestyle they were used to when they left home, which was itself a hybrid fusion of many different influences.

My only point is that you should only be proud for what YOU are, not your forefathers. Otherwise, I suppose all Germans should be ashamed for lifetimes to come. Being proud of what others did, who happen to be from the same country or race is pretty similar to these hillbilly Americans saying, "Yeah, well if it weren't fer us, the world would be shit. Look at all a-what we did for technologeee, f'rinstance! An' we stopped the second world war, too! You complain that we're the world police, but ya need us, don'tcha?!" .... Well, if it weren't for US, a lot fewer people would be in dire need of basic things like food and shelter. And if it weren't for Mexicans, Mexico could feed themselves because the super-rich Mexicans are the equivalent of the super-rich Americans! The major difference is that the super- rich Mexicans actually OWN their country and government.

I just wanted to chip in a few more ideas.

A lot of traditional culture exists only because of traditional conditions: time wealth, money poverty. Traditional craftsmanship requires long generational chains of expertise, passed from old to young, mother to daughter. It requires a lot of uncapitalised, 'worthless' time. Nobody with a Palm Pilot schedules three months to make a blanket. As soon as time becomes money, you kill traditional culture.

Some people say it's patronising to condemn the March of the Golden Arches, wherever it may go. These people call attempts to preserve traditional culture 'sentimental'. They say that MacDonalds is simply increasing the dietary choices available to people in whichever country it opens in next.

Once you put trad crafts or cuisines on sale on a supermarket shelf alongside global products, several changes take place at the local level:

1. The people who made them realise they can't afford their own products, let alone the western ones beside them, without getting a job pumping gas. Which doesn't allow them time to make the blankets any more. It's easy enough to get into watching TV and drinking beer instead. The muscles turn to fat.

2. When your own trad culture is just another consumer choice, you may well want to choose an 'exotic' and escapist product like a Big Mac. The people selecting your trad products are probably tourists. Suddenly you're producing for, and consuming in, the global economy. Result: your trad culture, intact for thousands of years, is instantly undermined and turned into something totally different -- a capitalist commodity. It changes. It becomes plastic. What once was a tribal tribute to Apku the Sun Spirit is soon made only by professionals with canny marketing skills.

3. Maybe the internet is the place to start making new versions of the lost traditional cultures. The 'threads' woven here on Greenspun resemble tradional basketwork in pre-global economies in that they're made communally (no copyright or assertion of authorship issues here, no professionalisation, although many of us are professionals elsewhere), they're made less for money than for passion (love, hate, to pass the time, to assert community), and they're not (yet) for sale (I know people have talked about putting this stuff in a book, but really, is that likely? All those flame wars, cast in stone? I think not.) Greenspun threads, like ethnic woven products in remote mountain republics, have high use value but little exchange value. So it's safe to say that Greenspun will not be franchising its way to ubiquity the way McDonald's did.

This is a much more modern marketing plan than McD's. Let's make an artefact we devote hours and weeks and months of our lives to, and don't even think about selling. It's like a rug. It's made of threads.

What I want to know is, would Momus prefer that 'cranky religious minorities, Bible bashers and mercantile untouchables' be prevented from helping to mould a 'culture'?

From what he's posted, yes. It seems that culture is only culture in Momus's mind if Momus approves of it.

Re the asylum seeker parade. There was a big ANL rally after the Glasgow murder which does not really count but does at least show that plenty of people want to offer support. Being anti-asylum seeking is nimby-ism at its worst. People will agree with the principles but then say why don't they go to France/German? The result of having the most spoken language in the world perhaps? The empire based (but as Robin rightly says exeplified by the 50 BBS middle class) monoculture has reaped its reward on that front.

suggested slogan: WE'RE HERE, WE'RE BOGUS, GET USED TO US

(Obv. requires "bogus" being reclaimed, like queer was: so let's start here...)

suggested slogan: WE'RE HERE, WE'RE BOGUS, GET USED TO US

(Obv. requires "bogus" being reclaimed, like queer was: so let's start here...)

Mark's original post on asylum seekers etc. seemed to present almost exactly the same argument as Jonathan Freedland's "Bring Home The Revolution", the most interesting British liberal tract of the late 90s *precisely because* it broke down the excessive smug anti- Americanism of some in "the Guardian coterie" (for want of a better phrase). Didn't agree with every word of it, less now Bush is in, but the point is that it stimulated me, made me think, overturned pre- conceptions. Virtually the whole of this thread has done that, for which I'm grateful, and Freedland's basic argument - that too many people *still* see Britain as a concept defined by ethnicity rather than civic values and therefore see incomers as a threat - is basically, sadly, true.

Sorry, I have nothing of substance to add here. It's just that this resonated so strongly with me that I almost feel like an optimist again.

I'd just like to say that I hope this does NOT happen (again).

lol what is up with monoculture