The History Channel...

wheatgrinder said:
Curse you APE! You win this round.. but I'll be back! :)
I knew the Beatles gambit was a risk! lol.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really trying to win, just make a point that TV and film needs to be looked at globally rather than just from the perspective of one country, even if that country (the US) is frequently the largest or one of the largest influences. It's kind of ironical for example that the "Hollywood" blockbuster "Captain America" was actually made in England! Even this isn't entirely true though. The nature and logistics of many films, particularly big budget films, is and has been for decades extremely international. Of course, the sword swings both ways, even a quintessentially English film like The King's Speech had aspects of the film made in LA. Commercial filmmaking in practice is frequently and almost literally a world away from the type of filmmaking which no/lo budget filmmakers usually get to experience or fully appreciate.

Nice try with The Beatles BTW, you've got balls that's for sure! :) That's not a bad trait to have as a filmmaker though, IMO.

G
 
I've been biting my tongue, but I can't take it anymore. This is the dumbest debate that's ever been had by smart people.

First of all, you're using the word "culture" wrong. It's not something you can export. It's something that all humans have, and constantly share with each other, whether they want to or not. "Culture" is not synonymous with "art", though art is part of one's culture.

Let's get one thing straight -- for better or worse, America is the world's sole Superpower. With our hands and fingers touching every inch of the world, we both pick up cultural influences from pretty much everywhere, and leave lasting cultural imprints, pretty much everywhere. Seeing as how we are, without question, the most far-reaching empire on Earth, it makes sense that we take in more foreign culture than anyone else, as well as sending out more of our culture than anyone else.

Furthermore, this talk about music and movies, and which countries they hail from, has become really short-sighted. You guys are blatantly ignoring any important artistic milestones that don't fit conveniently into your personal preferences and biases.

STEVIE WONDER IS AMERICAN! STING IS AMERICAN! FRANK SINATRA IS AMERICAN! WILLIE NELSON IS AMERICAN! ISAAC HAYES IS AMERICAN! STEVIE RAY VAUGHN IS AMERICAN! JIMI HENDRIX IS AMERICAN! JOHN DENVER IS AMERICAN! RAY CHARLES IS AMERICAN! ELVIS PRESLEY IS AMERICAN! JAMES BROWN IS A MOTHERFUCKING AMERICAN!

We could do this all day. You can name a bunch of influential modern artists who aren't from America, and I can name a great deal more who are. But that's not because America is better. We're just really big, both in population and in cultural reach. We bring in different aspects of cultures from all over the place, and we send out just as much as we take.

This isn't a question of consuming vs. producing. To be frank, that line of reasoning is asinine. Culture is not something that is either produced or consumed. It just is, and it's naturally fluid.
 
Cracker Funk said:
I've been biting my tongue, but I can't take it anymore. This is the dumbest debate that's ever been had by smart people.

First of all, you're using the word "culture" wrong. It's not something you can export. It's something that all humans have, and constantly share with each other, whether they want to or not. "Culture" is not synonymous with "art", though art is part of one's culture.

Let's get one thing straight -- for better or worse, America is the world's sole Superpower. With our hands and fingers touching every inch of the world, we both pick up cultural influences from pretty much everywhere, and leave lasting cultural imprints, pretty much everywhere. Seeing as how we are, without question, the most far-reaching empire on Earth, it makes sense that we take in more foreign culture than anyone else, as well as sending out more of our culture than anyone else.

Furthermore, this talk about music and movies, and which countries they hail from, has become really short-sighted. You guys are blatantly ignoring any important artistic milestones that don't fit conveniently into your personal preferences and biases.

STEVIE WONDER IS AMERICAN! STING IS AMERICAN! FRANK SINATRA IS AMERICAN! WILLIE NELSON IS AMERICAN! ISAAC HAYES IS AMERICAN! STEVIE RAY VAUGHN IS AMERICAN! JIMI HENDRIX IS AMERICAN! JOHN DENVER IS AMERICAN! RAY CHARLES IS AMERICAN! ELVIS PRESLEY IS AMERICAN! JAMES BROWN IS A MOTHERFUCKING AMERICAN!

We could do this all day. You can name a bunch of influential modern artists who aren't from America, and I can name a great deal more who are. But that's not because America is better. We're just really big, both in population and in cultural reach. We bring in different aspects of cultures from all over the place, and we send out just as much as we take.

This isn't a question of consuming vs. producing. To be frank, that line of reasoning is asinine. Culture is not something that is either produced or consumed. It just is, and it's naturally fluid.
Click to expand...


:yes:
 
Cracker Funk said:
Let's get one thing straight -- for better or worse, America is the world's sole Superpower. With our hands and fingers touching every inch of the world, we both pick up cultural influences from pretty much everywhere, and leave lasting cultural imprints, pretty much everywhere. Seeing as how we are, without question, the most far-reaching empire on Earth, it makes sense that we take in more foreign culture than anyone else, as well as sending out more of our culture than anyone else.
Click to expand...

You're basing all this on a line of hegemonic reasoning that only exists within America. The reference to 'empire' brings up the fundamental difference between the world we live in now and the concept of 'empire', which is the free markets. There is no empire from which the US can intake culture- like, say, the British Raj did in India- but you are able to purchase culture from other countries. And that is what changes the equation- you can say that culture can't be produced or consumed, but it can be quantified because capitalism has ensured that, for the foreseeable future, culture is a commodity.

Now, that's not to say that America isn't a top cultural exporter. It's simply a reaction to asserting that American produces the 'best' content, which seems to be to be as much based on the concept of an 'American Empire' as it is on any rational, comparative aesthetic reasoning.
 
Cracker Funk said:
You can name a bunch of influential modern artists who aren't from America, and I can name a great deal more who are.
Click to expand...

No you can't, not even close! If you are talking about modern artists who have influenced American culture, then yes obviously there would be more Americans in that list than foreigners, otherwise America would hardly have a culture of it's own! This comes back to what I said previously, that as a very broad generality, America tends to have a very insular and limited view of the rest of the world and often a unique concept of world history and of it's place within it. Case in point, in the late 60's and 70's British popular music had far more influence on the rest of the world than American popular music, you could even make the argument that for a period of time, Britain had more influence even on American popular music culture than did Americans themselves.

BTW, I like the way you snuck Sting into your list of great American musicians, another nice try! And, you could even make the argument that Jimi Hendrix was shunned by the American people and culture and would have been unheard of to this day if his talent hadn't been recognised, embraced, nurtured and promoted outside of the US.

While America has a huge amount of influence due to it's economic standing, it does not have an empire. IMHO, this is to America's credit! But the decades old propaganda litany of America being the biggest and best just has never rung true with anybody except some Americans. The US contains what, about 4% of the world's population? It doesn't have as big an economy, as high a population or as much of a cultural reach as the EU.

I agree with you though that this is an asinine argument because we can keep quoting facts, figures and historical influences forever without proving anything to each other because there are too many factors and ultimately it comes down to belief. I've spent a considerable amount of time in the US and have many American friends and acquaintances, many are very well travelled and acutely aware of American patriotism and propaganda but even so there are many who appear to have great difficulty seeing past some of the more subtle aspects of American indoctrination. This is all sounding very anti-American but it's not meant to, there are many aspects of American culture and society which are great and better than anywhere else but likewise there are other aspects which are not and while America's international influence maybe considerable in some areas it is virtually never the most dominant cultural influence, except in America itself of course.

Again, this isn't a pissing match about who is "better", my point is just that there is an entire world outside of the US, a great deal more culture outside of the US than within it and by no means all the greatest talent and best content exists in the USA, and using the argument that the US is bigger in terms of population, economy or of cultural reach is just non-sensical propaganda. You may not be very aware of the depth of culture, history and talent of the rest of the world because your press, culture and media is generally very insular and frequently superficial regarding the outside world but just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist! It unfortunately appears to the rest of the world that America believes it is best at everything and when someone or something comes along which is better, America changes the facts, the history or finds some way to make it appear American. Just in this thread we've had The Beatles and now Sting but there are countless other examples. Saying that all the best content is American, really is an extremely blinkered, patently incorrect and a potentially insulting statement.

I think I should leave this thread here at this point. Not because I'm angered by it but simply because there is nothing else to be gained from my involvement and nowhere else for this line of discussion to go IMO except downwards.

G
 
Oops, haha, yeah that was a brain-fart, sneaking Sting into my list. But we've adopted him, the same way that Wu-Tang now belongs to China. ;)

Anyway, so Nick, you don't think America is an empire? Oh, that must be why we have military bases on your soil. How come the RAF doesn't have a military presence on American soil? Why is there no German military presence on American soil? No, we don't install American leaders and American government, so I guess if that's how you define an empire than that's not us. Instead, we prefer just to plop down our military, and in that regard, we're the most powerful nation in the history of the world. That's not opinion, that's fact.

No matter which country you hail from, your nation's banks keep healthy reserves of the American Dollar. They have to; that's how you buy oil.

And for the record, I'm not bragging; I'm rather embarrassed to be honest.

And no, culture CANNOT be produced or consumed. And that was the main reason I piped in, because you guys are simply using that word wrong. Culture is NOT a commodity. Art can be, but culture cannot.

Calling culture a commodity would be like saying that the United States is the world's greatest exporter of language, because the ENTIRE WORLD conducts business in English. Sorry Nick, I know it was your language first, but we're the main reason everyone speaks it today. But here's the thing -- language isn't a commodity. It just is.

And hegemony is a concept that only exists in America? Why don't you try telling that to the UK top 100. There sure are a lot of Americans on there. Why don't the numbers hold up in reverse? Why aren't there an equal number of Brits on the American top 100?

And let's take a look at last year's worldwide box office grosses. If America makes up less than 5% of the world's population, don't you think we're just slightly over represented in how many of our movies are being watched by the ENTIRE WORLD?

Oh, okay, so since it's incredibly obvious that America's influence is exceedingly disproportionately high, you have no recourse but to say that it isn't a question of quantity but quality. Gee, that's not even slightly subjective.

And that was the other main point I tried to make. These lists you're putting together are very biased. You mention the Beatles, but forgot about Cab Calloway? You mention the Stones, but forgot about Michael Jackson?

Rock and Roll ain't the only thing people listen to, folks. If you don't recognize America's HUGE influence on the rest of the world's music, then you are in serious denial. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but that won't make us go away.

And again, our influence is not because what we're producing is "better". There's no such thing, anyway. Our influence is simply because we're the most powerful nation in the world. Our military is all over the place, and where we don't have military, we at least have corporations conducting business, and that's probably more powerful than anything else.

And APE, I never said anything about better or best. It is exactly that kind of thinking that I'm against.
 
Last edited:
There is so much wrong with that post that I don't know where to start.

I hadn't realised that NATO membership meant we became part of an American Empire. We should probably have thought that through...

Also, you do realise that the reason the USA (not to mention Canada, Australia, South Africa, much of India and the rest of the commonwealth) speaks English is because of colonialism? The reason 'everyone speaks it today' is because the because the British Empire colonised half the globe and created a global language for trade and diplomacy. I'll leave it at that.

EDIT: Anyhow, this is, in no way, what this thread was about and we should leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Cracker Funk said:
How come the RAF doesn't have a military presence on American soil?
Click to expand...

British UAVs are mostly operated from Nevada…

Why is there no German military presence on American soil?
Click to expand...

…and the Germans have an Air Force Command operating out of Texas. And I believe Singapore and Saudi Arabia have training facilities in the US.

But the main reason there are so few foreign military installations on US soil is because you're so bloody far from anywhere; there's no tactical advantage to it.
 
Here's a fun fact that I find is rather telling in this conversation -- Michael Jackson outbid a Beatle to purchase the Beatles. :lol:

Dang, I'm just kinda trolling, now. Don't feed me. I'll walk away in shame now. ;)

Anyway, yeah, the History Channel sucks. They're not actually interested in anything other than selling advertising, and however they gotta do it...

The one that gets me is Discovery. I have a lot of friends who think that if something airs on discovery, and it's all science-y sounding, then it must be based in fact. Unfortunately, they don't realize that Discovery is owned by Disney, and all they really care about is turning a profit, so their programming espouses some really horrible pseudo-science.
 
Ill feed you CF! (also go completely off topic in the feeding.. justferfun)

Of course culture is a commodity, culture IS the product of society.. arts, scholarship etc. Very tangible assets that can be bought, traded, consumed, etc. Of course, not every aspect of society can be turned into a commodity, but many can.

Id argue that even thought memes as exported by the US are commodities, they just don't trade for cash, they are like freebies.. , spreading like a virus, each host that gets the meme, replicates it to other hosts.. self replication of information systems is what a virus IS!

Hello interweb based memes, are you listening? I called you out!
 
This discussion is silly.

2 of the top 10 TV shows on that list are American remakes of BBC shows (American Idol - Pop Idol; DWTS - whatever it was called on BBC), and one of them was remade in the other direction (The Bachelor) airing on BBC after the US. I'm pretty sure that if I dug deeper than the top ten I would find at least a dozen more cross overs in both directions.

And let's not get started with blatant remakes of films crossing one language/country to another. America remakes films from the EU, Hong Kong and Korea remake films from the US, and so on.

The notion that any given culture, in a world of instantaneous global communication, holds a monopoly on artistic superiority is kinda silly when you think about it.
 
wheatgrinder said:
... you elitist lefty's just assume that your correct. Thus, any reinforcement of the leftist ideals is considered main stream and hence your perception of where "center" is is already skewed way left compared to the what is actually center of the "Totalitarian communism <----> Anarchy for all" continuum.

far right = no government, center = some government, far left = all government
far right = no welfare, center = some welfare, far left=all welfare
far right = religious freedom, center=limited religious freedom, far left=state as religion
Click to expand...


Overly simplistic and far from accurate.

Just as simplistic would be to say that the far right wants everyone to believe as they do, while the far left believes that everyone should be able to think and choose for themselves.

Neither are entirely accurate.
 
chilipie said:
British UAVs are mostly operated from
But the main reason there are so few foreign military installations on US soil is because you're so bloody far from anywhere; there's no tactical advantage to it.
Click to expand...

With reference to the Sauds, why bother putting in a military base on our soil when you can just buy it outright.

Folks here might be surprised how much of the United States is not actually owned by the United States.
 
Not really.

All American producers do when they "remake" is package something for an audience that refuses to watch works from foreign nations in sufficient numbers. There is no "making it better," just a translation to make it easier for the LCD to accept so that tickets will be sold or ratings will be high. No producer who looks at a foreign film or TV show says to themselves "I'll improve that and do it in America!" They simply say "What's the minimum effort needed to repackage this for an American audience." The idea that the people engaged in such an endeavor are interested in anything but financial return is laughable at best.

----

Unless you're trying to argue that a "American Idol" is inherently superior to "Pop Idol" - which are both equally vile pieces of trash - simply because it was remade here. Which is, to belabor my own point, a very silly assertion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top