American-centricism and simplification of global cultural discourse

[ray245]

Cultural and political discourse on a global level has very often been framed in the English-language media from an American perspective. The dominance of America in global political discourse has made this so. Internet forums and social media, in which English is still the main common communicative language for people in different parts of the world has perhaps reinforced the American-centricism in a lot of political discourse.

This is not to say Americans can't understand different countries might conduct their cultural discourse differently, but I think there's a level of American-centricism that tends to overshadow or overrides the local nuances and the local context of those cultural discourse. To clarify what I am talking about, I am saying while issues like racism might the core political and cultural issue in America, issues like class might be a bigger political and cultural issue in places like the UK. But due to the Amercian-centricism in our global cultural discourse, issues like class might end up being downplayed by Americans.

Take another example. I've once read an article by a Singaporean that compares the Malays in Singapore to the native Americans in the US. The writer uses an American-centric discourse to discuss the issue of ethnicity and colonialism in South-east Asia, and missed out some of the important differences between the colonisation of the Americas and South-east Asia. Framing colonialism in Southeast Asia through the lens of colonialism in Americans can easily overlook the south-east Asian own perspective of the legacies of colonialism and etc.

The recent Brexit discussion, discussions about Hong Kong and etc has perhaps made me a little wary of the tendency amongst Americans to frame political and cultural discourse in a liberal vs Conservative lens. Being told all liberals are "on the same team" can be problematic, if the leaders of the liberals are basically Americans. It feels like the non-Americans have to frame our cultural discourse and political discussion in an American manner.

I think this OP feels like I am just rambling on, but it's just some random thoughts that has been on my mind for a while. It feels like our ability to generate a more globalist cultural discourse might be hampered by the dominance of the American lenses.

[K. A. Pital]

America is globalism. They are the main driving force of a unified hypercapitalist world. What kind of globalist discourse are you looking for? Anti-American is antiglobalization 99% of the time.

[mr friendly guy]

Do you mean things like how American Leftists criticise an Australian KFC commercial where the rowdy West Indian crowd is pacified by some finger lickin good fried chicken? The reference is that certain foods are associated with being black in the US eg water melons or fried chicken being the "food of slaves." In Australia there is no equivalent cultural connotation, nor any among blacks in the West Indies, so it just seems that the commercial is saying KFC is so great it will keep a rowdy crowd down. The fact that the crowd was West Indian ie black, shouldn't play a part in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaIhf41ctkM

---------------------------------
Edit - any example might be how right wing terrorism is the main cause of domestic terrorism in the US, but in Europe I believe its Islamic terrorism. So when American leftists talk about Islamophobia and how the corporate media downplays right wing terrorism and does the opposite with Islamic terrorism, it might not resonate with Europeans? Are these examples of what you mean Ray?

[ray245]

America is globalism. They are the main driving force of a unified hypercapitalist world. What kind of globalist discourse are you looking for? Anti-American is antiglobalization 99% of the time.

I am talking about how people frame cultural and political discourse. Liberalism vs conservatism, or making racism issues the front and centre of cultural discussions instead of other forms of inequality. Inequality in the US is mostly an issue of racism, while inequality in other places like in the UK are more tied up with class.

So I am not talking about "globalism" the way you are describing it, but more so on how people around the world ended up having to frame their discourse.

Do you mean things like how American Leftists criticise an Australian KFC commercial where the rowdy West Indian crowd is pacified by some finger lickin good fried chicken? The reference is that certain foods are associated with being black in the US eg water melons or fried chicken being the "food of slaves." In Australia there is no equivalent cultural connotation, nor any among blacks in the West Indies, so it just seems that the commercial is saying KFC is so great it will keep a rowdy crowd down. The fact that the crowd was West Indian ie black, shouldn't play a part in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaIhf41ctkM

---------------------------------
Edit - any example might be how right wing terrorism is the main cause of domestic terrorism in the US, but in Europe I believe its Islamic terrorism. So when American leftists talk about Islamophobia and how the corporate media downplays right wing terrorism and does the opposite with Islamic terrorism, it might not resonate with Europeans? Are these examples of what you mean Ray?

Basically. It feels like a lot of discourse has been simplified into an American left vs American right dichotomy. Or issues that deals with racism are primarily framed through an American lens.

For example, the term "people of colour" feels far too amercian-centric to me. As an ethnic Chinese, seeing myself as a person of colour feels extremely odd to me, and the notion of being labelled and grouped together as "Asian" doesn't really resonate to me given that many Chinese in East Asia would not say being Chinese and Japanese are interchangeable, and it also ignores issues like the Japanese discrimination towards ethnic-Koreans living in Japan. To group all east Asian as all being "yellow-skinned" feels like a discourse that is primarily related to the North American experience, in which whites see all East Asian as being one cohesive community. Or how using the "people of colour" discourse downplays the xenophobia that exist in the UK against East Europeans.

The American left-right dichotomy, or the American dichotomy in talking about issues likes race can sometimes be not the best tool in understanding issues on a more local context.

[K. A. Pital]

People frame it in the words of the masters.

The masters control even the language, hence the end result of American English and its terminology, including political and cultural issues, spreading like an invasive virus in the languages and cultures of the world.

Crush the current hegemon, and you will see how language will adapt in turn.

[ray245]

People frame it in the words of the masters.

The masters control even the language, hence the end result of American English and its terminology, including political and cultural issues, spreading like an invasive virus in the languages and cultures of the world.

Crush the current hegemon, and you will see how language will adapt in turn.

This doesn't solve the fundamental issue if a new discourse centered around a different country is taking over.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course it doesn’t, what I am saying is that Americanization of the language is a consequence of their hegemony, and will only be gone when their hegemony is gone.

[ray245]

Of course it doesn’t, what I am saying is that Americanization of the language is a consequence of their hegemony, and will only be gone when their hegemony is gone.

I see your point, but it doesn't offer a solution towards a pluralisation of discourse. If you can't pluralise discourse from a hegemonic discourse now, then simply ending the hegemony doesn't solve the issue in the future either.

[K. A. Pital]

If you don’t solve the hegemony issue, attempts to correct the language will fail.

Basis and superstructure. Sorry.

[Broomstick]

Crush the current hegemon, and you will see how language will adapt in turn.

You mean... like how after the demise of the British Empire the "global discourse" in English went from British English to American English?

If you don’t solve the hegemony issue, attempts to correct the language will fail.

Basis and superstructure. Sorry.

What's to prevent another hegemony from arising?

[Darth Yan]

Crush the current hegemon, and you will see how language will adapt in turn.

You mean... like how after the demise of the British Empire the "global discourse" in English went from British English to American English?

If you don’t solve the hegemony issue, attempts to correct the language will fail.

Basis and superstructure. Sorry.

What's to prevent another hegemony from arising?

Exactly. There are ALWAYS new powers. China might rise again, Brazil, hell even Russia might become a conquering empire like the Soviet Union was (though I'm not sure Stas would be bothered by the last prospect. After all conquest and exploitation is only bad when capitalists do it).

If america were to fall globalization would still exist.

[The Romulan Republic]

America is globalism. They are the main driving force of a unified hypercapitalist world. What kind of globalist discourse are you looking for? Anti-American is antiglobalization 99% of the time.

I would dispute the premise that globalization and capitalism are synonymous. I support a global socialist government, and cultural interconnectedness is simply an inevitable product of modern technology.

[K. A. Pital]

You mean... like how after the demise of the British Empire the "global discourse" in English went from British English to American English?

Yes, and from issues being framed in British Empire-relevant categories to US-related categories. This is a good example.

What's to prevent another hegemony from arising?

Nothing. You misunderstand my point: it is useless to try to reform language alone if the material foundations dictate a certain form of conversation and linguistic concepts used. It’s like trying to force illiterate peasants to write novels. First the situation must change: the material world - and the word, the ideal, will follow. Once there is common literacy, the peasants - former peasants- can also write.

Darth Yan failed to understand that this was an argument about the material and the ideal as well, not a criticism of America.

If China becomes a hegemony, expect the language to be changed to incorporate Chinese concepts and linguistic structures- slowly at first, but nonetheless. Buddhist, Confucian concepts, harmony, balance, loss of face and so on.

I am merely saying how it is. Saying „oh no it is bad we are all using US terminology“ is pointless - this is a consequence of material conditions and will only change with these conditions together, not before or separately from the situation in the material world.

[ray245]

You mean... like how after the demise of the British Empire the "global discourse" in English went from British English to American English?

Yes, and from issues being framed in British Empire-relevant categories to US-related categories. This is a good example.

What's to prevent another hegemony from arising?

Nothing. You misunderstand my point: it is useless to try to reform language alone if the material foundations dictate a certain form of conversation and linguistic concepts used. It’s like trying to force illiterate peasants to write novels. First the situation must change: the material world - and the word, the ideal, will follow. Once there is common literacy, the peasants - former peasants- can also write.

Darth Yan failed to understand that this was an argument about the material and the ideal as well, not a criticism of America.

If China becomes a hegemony, expect the language to be changed to incorporate Chinese concepts and linguistic structures- slowly at first, but nonetheless. Buddhist, Confucian concepts, harmony, balance, loss of face and so on.

I am merely saying how it is. Saying „oh no it is bad we are all using US terminology“ is pointless - this is a consequence of material conditions and will only change with these conditions together, not before or separately from the situation in the material world.

The point is to establish a diverse range of discourse even in the event a new hegemonic power takes over.

[K. A. Pital]

There is already a very diverse discourse since the weakening of US hegemony post-Iraq invasion and especially after 2010.

You seem to be wishing for something which I can’t quite grasp. US puppets and nations within the US sphere of influence can’t just stop using US-centered terminology and analysis, it would be impossible.

Others already do (see Chinese mainland, Indian media, Russian infospace, etc.)

Non-Americans don’t actually „have to“ frame their words in a manner that is only American-centered. Am I not living proof of that? The media are commercial structures and framing things in americanized terms pays, I guess... so... capitalism?!

What else do you need?

[ray245]

There is already a very diverse discourse since the weakening of US hegemony post-Iraq invasion and especially after 2010.

You seem to be wishing for something which I can’t quite grasp. US puppets and nations within the US sphere of influence can’t just stop using US-centered terminology and analysis, it would be impossible.

Others already do (see Chinese mainland, Indian media, Russian infospace, etc.)

Not in the English speaking world ( which also applies to international forums like SDN, as we used English as our main/only language). What I wish for is English-speakers to avoid framing local issues in the non-US part of the world in the manner that's akin to the US. I'm not targeting TRR per say, but I think many of his posts and viewpoints represent his American-centric views. His kind of views are quite common among many other people as well, including many journalists who reports on global affairs ( this applies to both left and right wing media)

Non-Americans don’t actually „have to“ frame their words in a manner that is only American-centered. Am I not living proof of that? The media are commercial structures and framing things in americanized terms pays, I guess... so... capitalism?!

What else do you need?

Not you per say, but many people are still doing so. Look at the rhetoric of some of the protesters in Hong Kong, which framed the current issue as a matter of liberal western values vs authoritarian Chinese state, when the issue in Hong Kong goes beyond that. Or how most discussion about racism still relied heavily on a American framework, as opposed to relying on a diverse range of frameworks.

Look at some of the issues we have in talking about British xenophobia towards East Europeans, or Hong Kongers and Singaporean xenophobia towards mainland Chinese. Those issues are rarely framed as being about racism because colourism still remained the dominant framework for discussing racism.

[mr friendly guy]

Not you per say, but many people are still doing so. Look at the rhetoric of some of the protesters in Hong Kong, which framed the current issue as a matter of liberal western values vs authoritarian Chinese state, when the issue in Hong Kong goes beyond that. Or how most discussion about racism still relied heavily on a American framework, as opposed to relying on a diverse range of frameworks.

Look at some of the issues we have in talking about British xenophobia towards East Europeans, or Hong Kongers and Singaporean xenophobia towards mainland Chinese. Those issues are rarely framed as being about racism because colourism still remained the dominant framework for discussing racism.

I think using an American framework may be easy to help other people who are familiar with an American framework to understand. For this to work, there must be some sort of similarity. Trying to fit something into an American framework which doesn't fit, strikes me as just outright dishonest. To use your HK example, arguing its democracy vs authoritarian is just so dishonest (never mind that not being a democracy was never ever a problem for HK according to the Western media when the British were ruling), and ignores other factors like economic or even the blatant bigotry against Mainlanders.

In the second case, I query whether the problem is with the American centricism per se, as opposed to outright dishonesty. Because an American centric view certainly can and do see concepts like economic hardship and understand bigotry (well unless you're Faux news ), so the fact its just absent in their analysis seems more to do with trying to create a narrative rather than blinded by an American centric way of thinking.

[ray245]

I think using an American framework may be easy to help other people who are familiar with an American framework to understand. For this to work, there must be some sort of similarity. Trying to fit something into an American framework which doesn't fit, strikes me as just outright dishonest. To use your HK example, arguing its democracy vs authoritarian is just so dishonest (never mind that not being a democracy was never ever a problem for HK according to the Western media when the British were ruling), and ignores other factors like economic or even the blatant bigotry against Mainlanders.

Whether it is dishonest is a secondary point, a matter for another discussion. But the American framework shaped our discussion of many issues beyond current events, but wider and more encompassing discourse as well. I think people are very taught to adopt the American framework, on both the left and right wing of political spectrum. The American political discourse and debate is now viewed in global terms, with the American left-right framework being actively exported to non-American countries.

In the second case, I query whether the problem is with the American centricism per se, as opposed to outright dishonesty. Because an American centric view certainly can and do see concepts like economic hardship and understand bigotry (well unless you're Faux news ), so the fact its just absent in their analysis seems more to do with trying to create a narrative rather than blinded by an American centric way of thinking.

But even when discussion is made in good faith, using an American-centric discourse might overlook other frameworks in discussing certain issues. For example, how do we talk about racism beyond colourism? How useful is the American-centric discourse on race-relationship useful for discussing the mainland Chinese vs HKers divide? How useful is it to talk about racism in Japan?

Or how useful is it in discussing antisemitism, which is currently an issue that left-wing parties like Labour is facing?