h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here, here! I second that. It is certainly true that I enjoy the occasional rousing political debate, and the fact of the matter is that I would be hard pressed to engage in the debates that I do if I lived in another country. As FG pointed out, most countries don't like to discuss their past mistakes. And, quite honestly, in most countries in the world, my gender would make such arenas difficult to enter. The US may have its faults (lack of access to health care, rising poverty rates, overuse of the world's resources, to name a few), but it is also young enough that it can laugh at its own foibles.

And yes, it is refreshing to be able to discuss politics, etc. with someone who doesn't think the US is responsible for every bad thing that's ever happened in the world, all why denying that *their* country had anything to do with it.

So and on with the debate!

* for both *

...However, having got that out of the way, we do seem to be getting a bit "me too", don't you think?

Recently I did some canvassing of friends in the office - asking "What (if anything) is wrong with the US?"
Just to give us some more petrol for the fire, you understand.

Most reaction was predictable stuff about Iraq; old ground, though it was noticeable that no-one thought the problem was the US per se. There was a lot of "right idea/wrong way to go about it" comment. The only remark that entertained me ran something like this : A typically American thing to do - 1. Go and (more or less) elect a completely unsuitable government 2. Release it on the Rest of the World 3. Carry on about your normal business.

There were a couple of other themes. One guy (an Ulsterman) said "They don't understand Ireland". Hmmm. We'll save that one for sometime soon, maybe.

The one about which I'd like to suggest a discussion was : the US as Cultural Polluters. The lady who said it has kids around six to eight who "want MacDonalds instead of proper food", and will only watch US TV shows. She made the more general point, though, that while America is a strikingly diverse and inspiring place, its international projection of itself is uniform and bland. That interested me.

What do you guys think?

Well, Pin, I think that there's something to that. Being as large and culturally diverse, the melting pot has rather turned into a big pot of bleh. It's stewed too long, and lost flavor, if you want to extend the metaphor.

That said, however, yes, American food and drink and tv and what have you extend to every corner of the globe. But whose fault is that? American businesses are agressive, but not completely inescapable. The woman in your office? She *can* say no, but she doesn't, and why not? Because McDonald's makes it easy to feed your kids, that's why. It tastes good (to kids, anyway), is cheap, and frankly, some days, it's hard to get kids to agree to eat anything.

But that lack of cultural identity is, in some ways, what drives the global domination of McDonalds or Coca-Cola. They go anywhere, from Mongolia to the Sudan, from Norway to New South Wales. Why? Because it has absolutely no cultural ties to any one place. Greek food (one of FG and I's favorites) has cultural ties. It doesn't work well in, say, Finland. Although perhaps there are greek restaurants in Finland, but that's beside the point....Anyway!

Some of this, particularly Coke, goes back, again, to WWII. Soldiers needed something to drink, the water where they were was often polluted, and the Coca-Cola company made a deal with the military to provide FREE Coke to the soldiers in Europe. It became synonomous with American G.I.s, and victory....you get the picture.

What this all wraps up into is that yes, American culture has no real "culture" to speak of, at least not in the classic sense of the word. Yet our "bland" culture is everywhere. Perhpas it's that very lack of ethnic identity that makes it safe, because it doesn't carry conflict or partisanship with it.

Of course, then the question becomes...if American culture is so damned bland and unappealing, why is it that it's everywhere?

That last was what I was thinking, MR. People *can* say no to Coca-Cola, McDonalds, or Britney Spears. Anymore, I don't think such things are American culture per se anymore, but global corporate culture. The companies that market these products have CEOs, workers, plants, and offices on every continent. Obviously these things have found a worldwide market. And MR's right, they're bland enough to cross cultural boundaries. I don't like them either and I would suggest that your coworker do like I do and refuse to purchase these sorts of products. If enough people do that then things will change. Anywho, remind your co-worker that for the first two hundred years, our culture aped British and European culture--they're the foundation of our language, laws, arts, media, and literature. I guess it's payback time!

Next time I watch an episode of Masterpiece Theatre or Monty Python I'll remember to get irate at the "invasion" of British culture.

And what about the British Invasion in the 60s? And Britain gave us Howard Jones, for crying out loud!

I'm intrigued by the way that you seem to accept MacDonalds, Coke etc as having something to do with American culture.
Aren't they just commercial enterprises, projecting themselves (these days at least) as belonging to the world? As MR says, blandness and familiarity gives them the widest market, that's all.
So I don't personally accept the original premise. What comes to Europe as "American culture" isn't that at all. It's business opportunism, and could have come from anywhere.
But this is perhaps part of the problem of the US's image abroad. With this stream of facile US-branded products and messages, it's very hard for the US to be seen as careful and mature by the European public any longer. And this from a position 60 years ago where the US was seen as cautious to a fault. A call to arms from Ronald MacDonald does tend to get an incredulous reaction.
The administration doesn't help itself sometimes. I recall once seeing a public information broadcast (aka a campaign commercial - these things fool us Brits; we tend to assume there's some high-minded purpose behind them...)
Anyway, this broadcast-thing had Reagan's Space-Shield-wotsit as a child's dream, with crayoned pictures of pretty-coloured ICBMs bouncing off some sort of canopy, innocent high-pitched voice-overs etc. Yuk. Seriously creepy. That would be electoral suicide in most places.
But maybe Americans characterise themselves as children? Innocent and optimistic, forever able to bounce back. Maybe this also relates to the apparent mistrust of intellectual liberalism. In Europe, intellectual liberals are mostly vilified for being talkers rather than doers. In the US, it seems they're widely seen as actually subversive.
Just a stream of thoughts (in a narrow time-slot) this one, really. More later I hope.
In the meantime, I know Finland pretty well (more than 18 months of my life spent there) and, yep, I'm pretty sure I've never been to a Greek restaurant. They've got Ouzo, though...
Pin

::scratches head in confusion and wonders if she *didn't* say McDonalds *wasn't* American culture::

::looks above and realizes that she did::



No, intellectual liberals here are basically seen as do-nothing ivory tower elites, the same as over there. Nothing truly subversive, unless their voting for a third party canididate.

OK...you did, you did.
Trouble is, I keep rushing to read/think/reply as I start work.
Deserves a more considered response, dunnit?
* goes off for a think *
...and who's Howard Jones, anyway? (Vaguely recalls a talentless skinny git with sticky-up blond hair who couldn't sing, c. 1982 or so. Not him, surely?)
Mind you, letting Tracy Ullman in was a bad enough mistake.

That would be our boy. Speaking of which, the world can blame you guys for Boy George, too.

It IS him, innit?

Look, I take everything back. Cultural Pollution evidently flows the other way across the Atlantic. It would take more than a few million tons of pre-digested cow-board fed to European schoolchildren every year to redress the balance and assuage British guilt.
No, seriously, I cannot believe that this person could become a long-term success. He was a vapid non-entity who was hyped to fleeting visibility in the UK in the early 80s. As far as I know (and my kids do kind of keep me in touch) he has been completely unheard of over here since.
On FG's earlier examples of dubious cultural ambassadors, I refuse to acknowledge that Monty Python was anything but brilliant. Masterpiece Theatre I really only know from Sesame Street spoofing it, but I sort of recall that Alistair Cooke has an association. In which case, a fine broadcaster and an authentic gent - you shouldn't complain.
And we still haven't completely forgiven you for not looking after John Lennon, y'know.
But Howard Jones...we can only say we're really, really sorry...

Dubious? I certainly didn't mean to imply they were dubious! I was using the fine art of sarcasm. Really, truly. I love Monty Python. I love Masterpiece Theatre. I was using those as an example of British things Americans have taken to their hearts without dithering over whether or not it's proof of cultural pollution.

A fine example of silliness on this subject is the French, who fret and worry if an English word pops up in their language and then struggle mightily over finding a suitable French substitution. For goodness' sake, languages evolve and change over time. They shamelessly borrow, as it should be. If they didn't we'd be typing in Anglo-Saxon right now. No, even better. Indo-European.

Yeah; thought it was probably sarcasm, honest. It was Masterpiece Theatre that threw me off. Like I said, I've never seen anything but the Alistair Cookie-Monster version, and that leaves an expectation of the real thing consisting of 1960s black-and-white adaptations of Trollope or similar. A distinctive phase of British television that was, shall we say, and leave it at that.
The French, as you rightly note, have their little bete-noirs. Just today, they've finally relented and re-admitted British beef, a mere two years after the EC ruled they no longer had any grounds for banning its entry. They've been fined about a zillion Euros in the meantime. Doesn't seem to worry them much, though.
The French could teach you guys a thing or two about national insularity and protectionism, that's for sure.
It's not just Perfidious Albion they can't abide, though. The French establishment over the centuries has managed to vilify just about all emergent French genius as well.
You know, I'm even inclined to argue that Boy George has (slightly) more talent than Gerard Depardieu.
And is certainly prettier.
I visit France fairly regularly, both in work and for vacations. I still can't remotely understand the place.
As a good (French) friend says, you have to be born in France to know how to shrug.

I guess if there's one thing we can all agree on it's that the French suck!

Amid all that idle chat, something significant happened here yesterday.
Bill Clinton addressed the Labour Party conference. The press are full of it this morning. More to follow.
Pin

Thank you for the apology for Howard Jones. It's been a long time coming....do we get reparations, too?!

Perhaps I wasn't clear. What the world sees as American culture is the corporations, but that really isn't it. And another thing... it's really hard to have a homogeneous culture when you're the size of Europe! Perhaps that's why Americans are seen as having no culture. We certainly have regional cultures, particularly in the Northeast and the Southeast. The West is a little rougher, although I would argue that Northwest and Southwest have cultures, too.

So, could that be why America is seen as cultureless, because it's too big to have a single culture?

Now, about France. I keep wondering where all these snooty French folk live, because the two times I've been in France, everyone has been very nice to me. I've never met these French elitists, even when I spent a week visiting a friend at the Sorbonne. So I'm not sure where the whole superiority thing comes from. But yes, on the whole, the French government sucks.

Now, if you were to substitute "clueless" for "cultureless", you might be onto something!

'Fraid we can't stretch to reparations for Mr Jones. If you don't like British imports, use your imagination. Immersion in Boston Harbor, for example, might be due a reintroduction after a couple of centuries of disuse.

I think we've probably exhausted the French too, don't you? (Don't really feel like discussing the cultural validity of urinating in public, and after that we've covered everything the French ever do in more than enough depth. Yep, I count eight sentences. Almost excessive. I'm not even inclined to speculate why a nation that's spent the last two hundred years surrendering at the slightest provocation has a seat on the UN Security Council. Let's cut it. C'est tout)

On American cultural diversity, it's accepted, of course. Anyone who's travelled in the US will acknowledge that. Huge place, many different facets, topographies, outlooks, economies, races, you name it. There is no country in the world with more cultural variety, or more vibrant culture at a local level.

Its a single identity at national level that's missing. Inevitably, in the case of the modern US, because it's chosen inadequate figureheads to represent it on a world stage. But underneath that, it's surely a good thing that local culture and identity is more substantial than national. I believe rather strongly that Federalism only works with the weighting that way round, and most Americans I know believe it still more strongly.

Interestingly, exactly the same point is the pivotal one in Britain's "semi-detached" relationship with Europe. The somewhat faceless politicians of Brussels believe in a Federal Europe with the ascendancy in the centre; most of Britain wants ascendancy in the regions.

So, back to Bill. He was actually very impressive. The Labour Party Conference is a notorious bear-pit, one that even the Image-Master Blair finds it hard to control and play to advantage. Clinton took the sceptics head on, said it was entirely understandable not to trust Bush, but that Iraq was bigger than that. Blair was able to keep the party more or less in line on the issue, which was a remarkable outcome given the predictions of revolt of the preceding days. The British Press (mostly) lionised the performance of both men. Everyone I've spoken to about it thought it was uplifting and moving, even a couple of die-hard Tories (though the Tories actually enjoy a good call to arms more than anything!)

Clinton's authority might have evaporated over another issue, too. Last week, Britain got ventilated over the revelation that John Major of all people had had a 4-year affair with a junior minister before becoming PM. Sexual indiscretion as the issue of the week must have given the boys in Millbank palpitations with Bill already on the plane.

The Special Relationship is indeed a remarkable thing. Pity we've got into antiphase. Next time there's a Democrat in the White House, I bet Whitehall will be ringing to the sound of jackboots once more.

Pin

But here's the question...if both Bill Clinton and John Major had extramarital affairs (and I'm not so sure other leaders would hold up to such close scruntiny, either), and sudddenly their credibility as leaders becomes suspect, what does that say about both America and England? It makes us morality police, more concerned with interior thoughts than outward actions, more concerned about how major John Major is in bed, or what have you.

John Kennedy was no puritan, yet the fact that he was unfaithful to his wife had no bearing whatsoever on his ability to lead the country. If Bill Clinton, or John Major, impressed you during their time in office as a capable president/PM, then who cares what they're doing in their off time? Yes, Clinton should have 'fessed up immediately, and it would not have become the bloated mess it did. And John Major proves that his pro-family, 1950s morality was all smoke and mirrors. But all in all, a president's bedroom activities, honestly, are not part of the equation as far as being a capable leader goes. It makes them hypocrites, not bad leaders.

Again, I offer my choice of the best president of the 20th century....Jimmy Carter. No moral flaws (well, except for having "lust in his heart") that we know of...left the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 over the new mission statement of the church that reiterated women's submission to men, and the belief that it was the duty of the SBC to convert all Jews, as they were doomed to hell otherwise. Brokered peace between Israel and Egypt, works with Habitat for Humanity, managed NOT to p**s off the French PM during his 4 years in office (a feat!), laid the groundwork for treaties with Canada....shall I go on? The man was a bloomin' genius.

And in his place, we got Reagan. Some crap, eh? Spiraling inflation, etc. Iran-Contra anyone? Somebody explain to me how Iran-Contra is not directly tied to the hostages (because I believe very strongly it was...promises made for getting Reagan in). How could we go from Carter to Reagan? Somebody, explain that to me.

Don't think you have to be a puritan to expect senior politicians to keep their tackle in their trousers, MR.
Sexual indiscretions undermine trust in politicians in general, and such trust is dangerously low these days already. Moreover, if a politician succumbs to those kinds of distractions, and/or is prepared to take that degree of risk with his reputation, why SHOULD we trust him?
Major I can forgive more than Clinton. Major was guilty of a degree of hypocrisy (the family values ticket afterwards) but not much more. I'm prepared to believe that Currie was more manipulative than Major; the personalities they've displayed down the years suggest this. Clinton, on the other hand, seems not only to have had the dominant personality but to have exploited his power. Very inappropriate and distasteful act, from a man I otherwise admire.
And the circumstances + situation, to say nothing of the evasiveness afterwards, discredited the Office of President. That was really bad, surely?

On Carter, yes, you can legitimately claim him to be the most far-sighted and decent post-war President. I'm not so sure that he permanently changed much, though. Perhaps his legacy died with Sadat? A bit of a "might have been"; that's the way Europe sees him at least.

Why did he lose? I think his defeat coincided with the beginnings of the crisis of confidence that has beset the US over the last couple of decades. And I think he gave people the wrong message when they started to feel worried. He wound up standing for "you're right to be worried; we have to change" against a guy who stood for "nothing's changed; we're great and strong". Reagan smiled more, looked like he'd been fed properly, like he was enjoying it, had a nice tan. The candidates even looked like America's Self-Doubt vs America's Gleaming Confidence.

That and taxes. Seems to me that the US electorate are perpetual fall-guys for believing that they can have decent public services without paying for them.

The Iran-Contra thing and particularly the idea that hostage release was delayed to give Reagan the credit...I find it horrible and incredible. Still, there were some nutters around at that time. Oliver North comes back to mind.

I remember sitting with a couple of old friends in a bar in Cleveland early this year, last time I was over. One was trying to make a point that North and Timothy McVeigh were somehow similar, that there was some kind of distorted fanatical patriotism going on in both cases. The argument went over my head, but I remember his earnestness very clearly. Sometimes the American capacity for conspiracy theories bemuses me.

Reagan was more than a setback for the ideals that Carter had offered. Reagan represents the trivialisation of the Presidency, the final proof that the system and its money not only could elect a totally inadequate individual but was actually inclined to do so. All that Ronnie had to offer was the kind of affability you'd quite like in a grandfather but not, thank you very much, in a Head of State.

And George Dubya? He doesn't even have the affability, just the relatives in Florida.

Pin

American culture is a nothing culture, perhaps because of size, and...here's the important thing, perhaps because it caters to the lowest common denominator. Pro wrestling is often the most popular thing on TV, so why shouldn't the US elect a president that panders to that lowest common denominator, as well? Which is why Ronald Reagan got elected, I think. You're right, he had that "look" that said confidence, strength, etc. I often think that superficiality is extremely important to the US as a whole. Never mind that our economy is sinking, we still LOOK like we're sound. Never mind that LA is perpetually under a cloud of smog, or that children in southern California have more asthma and cancer than other children. Let's just make it LOOK like everything is sun, surf and fun.

The problem with using appearances to make political decisions (as opposed to who you're dating) is that appearances don't mean squat. Gore lost to Shrub because he looked stiff and uncomfortable, and when he spoke, he actually had facts and figures. A large percentage of the American population doesn't like to have statistics thrown at them. They want someone who makes them feel good about being Americans, who validates their belief that the US is the best place in the world because THEY exist. Shrub is very good at the politicking, just not so good at the actual politics.

Clinton did not damage the office of the president himself. He had plenty of help, from the senators who refused to recognize the dignity of the office and stay the hell out of his private life. And yes, the fact that he used his authority to get these women is disgusting, but no more so than the fact that they chased him because he was powerful. And furthering the conspiracy theory idea, why is it that she kept the dress? It isn't outside the realm of possiblity (although I for one think it highly improbable) that she kept the dress because 1) she knew that someday it would have value and 2) someone else told her to. What some have suggested is that Monica Lewinsky was a pawn in a game the republicans were playing, and she was sent in to seduce the man by others who wanted to weaken his popularity, because that way they could be assured that Gore would be tainted by Clinton's mess, and they could get a republican in office. Now, is that fact? No. But it certainly makes for a nice conspiracy!