Re: Interesting - anti-Americanism or a point?
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:25 +0100, M.Blackmore wrote: I think where this original comment was going was something along the lines of the political struggle against global corporatism (etc.) being essentially a political struggle that has to be engaged with upon American territory - cultural, political, and also in terms of corporate laws. ... Are we Europeans and Asians and Africans wasting our time when it is really you Yanks who need to get it together to stop this thing? It takes both -- resistance from within and from without. Resistance from within (Yanks) is a bit more difficult, because the influence of media/gov't misinformation and lack of different perspectives is of course stronger "within", and because the U.S. is the country that profits the most from globalization (at least in the PR version). I think the key is to make the Yanks see that even if the U.S. profits as a whole, the majority within the U.S. is *losing*, and only a small minority has a net benefit from globalization (the "trickle-down effect" is a PR myth). Resistance from without already exists to some extent, for various reasons (protectionism etc.). The key here is that both the total benefit and the individual benefits of the majority are *negative* (i.e. net damage). It will take international solidarity to oppose this, possibly the *reversal* of the U.S. policy of trade sanctions against anyone who doesn't "obey". A semantic side-note: The term "anti-Americanism" is somewhat ironic because it applies one of the very concepts that "anti-Americanism" criticises: To say "American" when one means "U.S.". The semantically correct term would be "anti-U.S.ism". ( Btw, the EU propaganda has copied this concept, talking of "Europe" when they mean "EU". This is pretty misleading because Europe consists of 30 countries of which only 15 are EU members. This leads to idiotic EUphoric claims such as "Switzerland is not yet part of Europe" or that those who oppose the political structure of the EU are "anti-Europeans" (in general, quite the contrary is true). ) One may even say that the term "Americans" is reserved for the Native peoples of the American continent (North and South). Then, the term "anti- Americanism" is practically reversed to its contrary. Btw, this idea is not as far-fetched as it may seem, since Nelson Mandela's successor Mbeki (the President of South Africa) denies to the white South Africans the right to call themselves Africans -- Mbeki says the term "Africans" is reserved for Blacks. Talk about ending Apartheid... Greetings, Chris
Re: Interesting - anti-Americanism or a point?
I think where this original comment was going was something along the lines of the political struggle against global corporatism (etc.) being essentially a political struggle that has to be engaged with upon American territory - cultural, political, and also in terms of corporate laws. I can't remember how the rest of it went (didn't save that bit for some reason). But if that was the direction the original post was going, is it a pertinent point with reference to how to construct effective opposition? Are we Europeans and Asians and Africans wasting our time when it is really you Yanks who need to get it together to stop this thing? Reminds me a bit of the sort of thing that blacks were saying around London in the early 80s - that racism isn't a black problem, it's a white problem. Hmmm.
Re: Interesting - anti-Americanism or a point?
I think where this original comment was going was something along the lines of the political struggle against global corporatism (etc.) being essentially a political struggle that has to be engaged with upon American territory - cultural, political, and also in terms of corporate laws. I can't remember how the rest of it went (didn't save that bit for some reason). But if that was the direction the original post was going, is it a pertinent point with reference to how to construct effective opposition? Are we Europeans and Asians and Africans wasting our time when it is really you Yanks who need to get it together to stop this thing? Reminds me a bit of the sort of thing that blacks were saying around London in the early 80s - that racism isn't a black problem, it's a white problem. Hmmm.
Re: Interesting - anti-Americanism or a point?
With respect, Thomas, I think a lot of things are getting mixed up here. I generally agree with the first paragraph of your post, though I think it's a lot more than a business issue, it certainly goes hand in hand with ever expanding business. It also has a lot to do with what people, certainly young people, in all cultures seem to find attractive and worth striving for. Technology means power, and power and prestige and status are something you find in every culture. Your enumeration of expansionist movements I find rather unbalanced. And none of the religions you mention have yet ended up in any dustbin. They may at some time in the future, but some of the ideas and values they propagate, in some form or an other, will undoubtedly endure. Moreover, Buddhism has, perhaps with the exception of the empire of Ashoka, as far as I know, never been the philosophy of an expansionist empire. Warm regards, Jan Matthieu Flemish Greens PS: this is not to say I agree completely with the post you responded to. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: mardi 17 août 1999 20:40 Onderwerp: Re: Interesting - anti-Americanism or a point? Thomas: Globalization is not necessarily an American issue - it is a business issue from a capitalistic viewpoint of ever expanding growth. The fact that it dovetails with the American myth of the endless frontier and is dramatized by the most powerful image machine of history as reflected in the media's of North America seems to point the finger at America. Historically, one can perhaps state that it is just another form of expansionist history. From Alexander The Great, to Rome, to the Vikings, to the British Empire, the Catholic Church, Budda and Mohamed, and many others in between, there seems to arise in history, movements that strive to globalize. All have ended up in the dustbin of history - as will globalization. What endures is family, sex, the need to eat and have shelter, the desire for entertainment, happiness and a search for the meaning of life through philosophy and religion and drugs. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Interesting - anti-Americanism or a point?
Copied from a discussion... any comments anyone? Is "globalisation" really an American issue? "Will we permit the future history of the world to become the history of America? Of the American Corporation - or more precisely the American-dominated financial system? And just how short a history will we allow it to be? For globalisation isn't really a world phenomenon - it is largely American organisations with their culture, outlook, strategies and philosophies, which define the lives more and more people lead - and the deaths they die. It is a phenomenon from a particular place and time imposed upon global place and time. At least for now. This America extends its frontiers into new worlds, and takes over old ones. It strides time and space in a simultaneous perversion and continuation of its peculiar historical psychology of conquest. It now seeks to extend these frontiers into the totality of the human mind (or was the American Dream always a conquest of the mind?) Unprecededented control of information via corporatly controlled media creates corporately made minds, a populace with limited understanding of the real world they inhabit, shaped by selected information and mythologies of freedom. An engineered world-view to override all other perceived possibilities - there can be no alternative, therefore there is no alternative. Their reality may be hell or an ersatz heaven for those (anxiously) within reach of the orbits of privilege. But the reality of possibility that can be mentally grasped by the "kept stupid" is filtered through mindsets selected, designed, packaged and presented for consumption and for specific purposes. Even in rebellion - for the people are not happy but know not what to do - rebellion is channeled into paths that simultaneously emasculate possibilities for unravelling power, allows useful release for the minority who fail to be passive, and the excuse to suppress those who push too hard. If alternative ways are either inconceivable or, the very act of being different can only be dreams without possibility of substance, challenge to dominant power becomes impossible. And that forthcoming history a short history? Indeed. For without turning from the current course of environmental and human degradation future world history - or the history of civilisation - may be very short".
Re: Interesting - anti-Americanism or a point?
Thomas: Globalization is not necessarily an American issue - it is a business issue from a capitalistic viewpoint of ever expanding growth. The fact that it dovetails with the American myth of the endless frontier and is dramatized by the most powerful image machine of history as reflected in the media's of North America seems to point the finger at America. Historically, one can perhaps state that it is just another form of expansionist history. From Alexander The Great, to Rome, to the Vikings, to the British Empire, the Catholic Church, Budda and Mohamed, and many others in between, there seems to arise in history, movements that strive to globalize. All have ended up in the dustbin of history - as will globalization. What endures is family, sex, the need to eat and have shelter, the desire for entertainment, happiness and a search for the meaning of life through philosophy and religion and drugs. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M.Blackmore) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Interesting - anti-Americanism or a point? Date: Tue, Aug 17, 1999, 12:00 PM Copied from a discussion... any comments anyone? Is "globalisation" really an American issue? "Will we permit the future history of the world to become the history of America? Of the American Corporation - or more precisely the American-dominated financial system? And just how short a history will we allow it to be? For globalisation isn't really a world phenomenon - it is largely American organisations with their culture, outlook, strategies and philosophies, which define the lives more and more people lead - and the deaths they die. It is a phenomenon from a particular place and time imposed upon global place and time. At least for now. This America extends its frontiers into new worlds, and takes over old ones. It strides time and space in a simultaneous perversion and continuation of its peculiar historical psychology of conquest. It now seeks to extend these frontiers into the totality of the human mind (or was the American Dream always a conquest of the mind?) Unprecededented control of information via corporatly controlled media creates corporately made minds, a populace with limited understanding of the real world they inhabit, shaped by selected information and mythologies of freedom. An engineered world-view to override all other perceived possibilities - there can be no alternative, therefore there is no alternative. Their reality may be hell or an ersatz heaven for those (anxiously) within reach of the orbits of privilege. But the reality of possibility that can be mentally grasped by the "kept stupid" is filtered through mindsets selected, designed, packaged and presented for consumption and for specific purposes. Even in rebellion - for the people are not happy but know not what to do - rebellion is channeled into paths that simultaneously emasculate possibilities for unravelling power, allows useful release for the minority who fail to be passive, and the excuse to suppress those who push too hard. If alternative ways are either inconceivable or, the very act of being different can only be dreams without possibility of substance, challenge to dominant power becomes impossible. And that forthcoming history a short history? Indeed. For without turning from the current course of environmental and human degradation future world history - or the history of civilisation - may be very short".
