Talk:Cultural imperialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Cultural imperialism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

some folks need to get over the guilt and shame complex they have of being or not being european or of european descent. Islam is a form of cultural imperialism par exelance. China, or Japan? Egypts dominance of 9 African southern countries? Brazilian - Aregntian rivalrly in South America to see who influences the contient more. Even Mexicos Central American imperialism. Let's also not forget history. How about Huns, Mongols? Does it ever stop? So why focus only on the most recent, and easily identifiable? BEcause of intellectual slavishness

I just added a section on Canada's response to American Cultural Imperialism. Most of this was drawn from J. M. Bumstead's Peoples of Canada -- A Post Confederation History. --The.Saint 19:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's really "cultural imperialism" when most Canadians voluntarily watch American shows like The Simpsons, Friends, Family Guy, Seinfeld, and so forth. No one is forcing Canadians to watch American shows. They simply attract higher viewership than indigenous programming. Raggaga 02:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
hello

Just because we are good at it doesn't mean we are the only ones to have done it or to be doing it now. We need also to discuss British cultural imperialism in the 19th century especially. And what French, Russian, and Chinese, especially but not exclusively within their countries? ---rmhermen

Opposition to cultural imperialism of America in the Middle East region is called terrorism by the Americans themselves. -- This is clearly not trying to be impartial. I think the article needs a lot of work, quite possibly a full rewrite, if it is to be brought in line with the neutral point of view policy.

Agreed. --KQ

It's much more than merely unbiased, it's plainly false, and beneath the dignity of honest debate. I removed it without a second thought. --LDC

It is a bit silly. But definatley something worth an article. Should definately have stuff about imperialism from other past cultural empires, but it is a specificly American phenomenon. --Asa

Well, the term itself may be applied to America more frequently than to anyone else nowadays, but it was frankly coined to apply to European cultures. Kind of like the comment on 'class' under Roman Republic. Class means LOTS more than money. --MichaelTinkler

notable France, try to oppose Americanism and Americanisation of Europe

I'd accept this phrase if the author then continued: "with a nationalist approach to language and culture that is at least as unattractive as the presence of McDonald's in historic city-centers." I'll even compromise my ugly-Americanism and leave off the conclusion: "...though less than successfully." --MichaelTinkler, victim of French Cultural Imperialism of the 1980s (i.e., graduate student during the invasion of th Deconstructionists).

Need some specific references for this allegation, French cultural protectionism is not specifically targeted at americanisation, and it is not because some groups of people express a strong anti-americanism in France and use some somewhat discutable and violent actions against businesses originating from the USA that it is an official policy. Cultural protectionism is very strong with a lot of regulations to protect French cultural products, mainly music, cinema, the use of French language and the protection of regional products (i.e. wines, cheeses, ...) because they are symbol of the national identity not to prevent the spread of US products. In addition, by posing as a victim of French cultural imperialism, you are openly admitting that your point of view is not neutral. If French people were so anti-american and protectionists, why then would the businesses selling burgers and fizzy drinks be thriving in France? Blastwizard 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the beginning of another dispute. Why not simply change the article? There is no author. There is only the article. I'd do it but I'm not currently in the mood. --LMS

OK, mine is pretty much a complete rewrite. What do you all think. It is a bit awkward and stilted, so contributions welcome. -- Asa

The Greek Empire built gyms, theatres and public baths in countries that it conquerered (such as ancient Israel) to try and emerse the populations in their culture. - I don't think this is true. As far as I know, the Hellenistic kingdoms (a unified empire didn't last especially long) mainly built such implements for the Greek immigrants who formed the most important part of their population. Alex intended a fusion of cultures but not many of his generals shared the idea, and most conquered peoples went fairly unhellenized, and I expect little was done to change that. Also, what's so special about the tiny province of Israel as compared to Egypt, Mesopotamia and Persia?

Agreed! You obviously know more than me on this: feel free to make appropriate changes: this is a Wiki remember! --Asa

I can think of two reasons to mention Israel (and there was a 'such as' introducing it). Primary and secondary sources about Israel and resistance to Greek cultural imperialism are readily available in English, unlike the occasional scholarly study of the survival of the Syriac or the Coptic languages or cultures. That'd be a good enough reason. And then there's the opportunity to link to entries on the Maccabees. Hellenism may have been only skin deep, but it was certainly cultural imperialism. --MichaelTinkler

I'm not questioning how deep it was, but how much of a drive there was. Seleucus IV, who the Maccabees revolted against (which I guess does make them a good example after all), was pretty much exceptional in his attempts to enforce a common culture. Most of the Hellenistic kings were tolerant of the native peoples and pretty much left them alone, so that any hellenizing that took place was a matter of cultural diffusion rather than imperialism. I think. I'm not quite sure enough to change the article. --Josh Grosse

Well, if having a job with the government counts, then Greek was compulsory. I find the comparison and contrast between Anglophone Africa and India instructive for understanding parts of the Hellenistic world. India was more like the other language groups in the Hellenistic world - it is a high culture with a huge literature in well-analysed languages with their own scholarly traditions (compare Hebrew and Syriac). Coptic is much less clear - the continuity with the classical Egyptian literature was more broken. The Anatolian languages survived poorly (though they were around into the 5th century CE after all, at least colloquially). It was possible to have a 'traditional' education in Indian languages that was still literary. It was not possible to have a 'literary' education in most African languages (Swahili is an exception - it has a developed poetry, I'm told). It's an interesting and various world, the Hellensitic one. --MichaelTinkler

It appears to me that there is quite a lot of historical generalisation going on here. the original statement "greek empire" is being confused by michaelTinkler with the Hellenic period I think (though I am not sure wether the archaic or the modern). the culture that is being refered to as greek is subject to later cultural definition, it is arguable that it was a continuum ranging from prehistory through the Mycenaeans the Ancient Greeks and city states, the Ptolemaic dynasty Egyptians, the Alexandrian conquests. with a short pause for the Roman Empire (which was seen as developing out of the Greek) then taken up again by Emporer Constantine to subsequently become the Eastern Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire (as it later becam known in the west). Its Incorporation and Influence is also noted on the Ottoman Empire and early Islam. Clearly there is a good case for some of these phases of empire to be cited as examples of cultural imperialism, perhaps especially the Ptolemaic period.
We must be carefull not to confuse military or actual imperialism with the subject of this page cultural imperialism. There IS a difference. Cultural Imperialism is not neccesarily acompanied with an actual invasion, nor is it about simple exportation. It occurs when enough cultural elements from one country can be seen to affect the collective culture of many others - an empire, rather than a short term bilateral influence.
So to give the British Empire as an example is false as it was an actual political empire resulting from an invasion - though it could be said that the influence of India on british culture throughout the empire was significant enough to be classed as a form of cultural conversion. Likewise the example of Israel is not really relevant as it was simply one recipient of a far greater cultural shift, again enforced through conquest.
Cultural imperialism does represent a form of invasion. An invasion of values, morality, traditions and opinions. In addition to this it is arguable that the natural flow of culture has always occured, whereas the fairly recent use of policy to achieve this end is invasion by other means, as such It is a fairly recent phenomena. DavidP 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not American, but I think this article is unfair to the Americans. The author is not just biased, he is simply anti-American in my opinion. Forcing one's culture on others happened everywhere. There is no reason why this article have to emphasize this as an American behavior. All the cultural imperialism mentioned in the article are simply corporate business in action. Perhaps it is the American companies that have a wider international influence and hence got blamed for some irresponsible promotions that are considered cultural invasions here.

If you talked about pop music being cultural imperialism, then the British should be guilty. Everyone still remembers how the Beatles came to the US. It is a free market. If the countries do not import, Americans have no where to export. There are always two ends to a transaction. You cannot blame only one side. When the British sold opium to the Chinese, the Chinese fought the Opium War and lost. China had to pay the Britons for their war expenses. In addition, Britain took Hong Kong as part of the settlement at the end of the war. Anyone one can see that as a form of robbery. But when you were the loser, you couldn't have justice. Hong Kong since then became an extremely westernized city. The majority of the population in Hong Kong are Chinese. They were changed by the Western culture. By your standards, the British were cultural imperialist too.

There were many examples of real cultural imperialism where the victims had no choice. When the Manchu conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty, all men had to shave their forehead and wear a pig tail hair style. The alternative was to lose one's head. That was cultural imperialism.

When the missionery went to Hawaii, they imposed their own moral standards on the native people. They said the Hula dancers were obscene and lewd. They banned the natives from doing Hula dances for hundreds of years. They didn't consider that the Hula dances were the native's way of passing on their culture and heritage from generation to generation through the story telling using sign language in the Hula dances. The native Hawaii history was effectively wiped out because the Hula dances were banned. That was a real example of cultural imperialism. Those missionery were not American either. Technically speaking, all preachers of any religion are cultural imperialist in certain way.

I have never heard the American forced anyone to listen to their songs or watch their movies. Then who's at fault?

I agree with some of the above, but how, precisely, do you think the article should be changed? That's the question to be asked here on this page. Better yet, just make whatever changes you feel are necessary. It might require a rewrite. --Larry Sanger

I also agree with some of the above, but dissagree with the general attitude. The fact is that the most dominant contries have exerted various unweildly forms of influence over the centuries - why is America any different? The last paragraph about "forced acculturation" vs. voluntary acceptance of culture is especially relavant. The US falls into this latter form of "imperialism" - its huge amount of cultural export, combined with its often arogant attitude ("we're number one!" etc.) leads to resentment, resistance or just riducule from other countries. This ranges from the alarming (the way our government seems to blindly back the US up in any military conflict or dissagreement with the rest of Europe (e.g. Kyoto)), to the less important (the way British young people have started to refer to trousers as "pants", the rediculous rate at witch Starbucks' are poping up in London).

By your standards, the British were cultural imperialist too.
Absolutely they were, as some of the examples you quoted show. As were other countries that you mentioned. Why not add these to the article? (I found the stuff about the Opium Wars, Hong Kong and Hula particularly interesting.) The reasons the US deserses a special mention: a) it is a current issue (in the world outside the US) b) In the British Empire, Manchu China etc the primary form of imperialism was compulsion by force - cultural absorbsion was secondary, though important. In the US' form of imperialism, cultural absorbsion is first, military force a last resort (deserves a whole new article).

The material recently added by Sjc about other forms of this over the centuries is excellent BTW, some of it from Cornish language. Well done! -- Asa

I found that the side effect of Capitalism is mistaken as cultural imperialism here. Imagine if the Levi's jeans won't sell in Britain, would Levi's care if the Briton wear anything at all. I do agree that most Americans think they are in the center of the universe. Most high school graduates don't even know their 50 states, let alone Europe or Asia. If you understand this mentality, the American didn't know they are invading other's culture because they didn't know there are other cultures.

I agree 99%! *MOST* Americans do think they are the centre of the universe and are ignorant of the rest of the world. Wikipedian Americans are obviously more enlightened thou  ;) -- Asa

I think you are engaging in unnecessary and ignorant anti-Americanism. It seems Europeans online all think they're experts about America and have some moral high ground to judge it, which they constantly do. This has no place on Wikipedia. Anyway, I have lived abroad in Germany and Russia and have done some travel elsewhere, and I think I understand what you're saying; but you're misinterpreting the attitude. The attitude isn't that Americans think they're the center of the universe. It's that they don't care about the rest of the world the way Europeans do--Europeans care simply because they are so interdependent upon each other, and because it is so easy to visit each others' countries. That's not the case in the U.S. Not caring about the rest of the world is not the same as thinking you're the center of the universe.

Can we get back to writing articles now? Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. --LMS

If anyone can write a couple of paragraphs on the history of the term cultural imperialism it would give the article a lot more depth. thigs like when it was forst used, when/where it became poupular first, etc. --Iwnbap


Isn't there a third option between voluntary embrace of a foreign culture and forced assimilation of a subject population? Some cultural propagation is actively directed by the source government, such as Saudi Arabia funding Wahabbi mosques througout the world. Some seem to be funded by NGOs in the source countries, such as the Goethe Institute and the Alliance Francaise.

--Ben

Cricket as a weapon of cultural imperialism! Presumably to bore the locals into submission. jimfbleak 12:13 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] English and the Bible

More deleted text:

Right-wing Christian groups(particularly missionaries) who see English as the language of the Bible and who would like to see a reversal of the curse of Babel are also likely to be repulsed by Phillipson’s theory (for full treatment of this position, see Pennycook). Others in this category may include White supremacists, Neocons and nostalgic colonialists like the prominent British historian, Paul Johnson.

DJ, what's wrong with the above text? (Not that I actually understand it...) --Uncle Ed 20:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia culturally imperialist?

Is this article on Cultural imperialism culturally imperialist?!

Is wikipedia, as a whole, culturally imperialist (dominated by Western values about knowledge and scholarship, and often revealing an American bias (it is no co-incidence that the articles on Circumcision and Communism for example are dealt with as controversial subjects on this site reflecting their controversial nature in the US). --Cap 14:25, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Probably, but that's because the vast majority of English language Wikipedia editors are American.


You know as a Canadian I was a little disturbed as well as fascinated on certain topics on Wikipedia, especially ones related to historical and reasonably well documented events that seemed to have a significant American Bias if not by the change in facts as much as by the cherry picking of facts...considering of course that Wiki is supposed to be a worldwide encyclopedia based on consensus...not American Imperialism?!? Okay so there is no separate listing of either American Bias or American Cultural Imperialism except linking to generic listings like this one. Yet other significant cultures or cultural movements get their own page?!? You can't have it both ways! If America has the largest world-wide cultural influence, esp. when you include the media and Hollywood...how can these topics not be separate wikis? Also current events have clearly shown that the shaping or framing of stories within the US is significantly different then the majority of the rest of the industrialized world's media reports on the same stories. I work with many Americans who not only listen and watch the CBC or BBC to get a different non-American Bias on major events, but even love watching the CBC for our Olympic coverage...which is usually live and uncut and covers more than just the Canadian athletes or who came first. (The Canadian quest for the Bronze is our own joke and not new.) So the question is whether or not the American Wiki editors are willing to open up the site to inconvenient truths or topics about themselves or history...or if they need Al Gore to make a movie about it before they can discuss it? Is Wikipedia the encyclopedic version of "Team America: World Police" force as in the movie? If so every other country able to communicate in English may need create a splinter site just to have information about topics that even the enlightened American Wiki editors would rather suppress and then discuss about how bad China's information and media manipulation is;)--Thehighlndr (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that american imperialism redirecting to American Empire or moving American Empire to american imperialism would address some of your complaint.Zebulin (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
American bias makes itself felt in many editorial decisions in Wikipedia; most nations have adopted the title "Second World War" as the 'official' description of the conflict from 1939-1945 (in German, zweiter weltkrieg, or example), as evidenced by the Official Histories published by the various governments. The United States has adopted "World War II" as the official title for the conflict - fine - vive la difference. Yet anyone suggesting that articles written about German, British, Canadian or French subjects actually adopt the 'proper' designation will almost always be shouted down by an American editor who will rabidly insist on the "World War II" designation, or worse, simply riddle the article with the acronym "WWII". And then will pursue their bias with great zeal.139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's sounds as if you went systematically removing instances of "world war II" and "WWII" offering the explanation that those are regional terms that do not belong in the articles. I wouldn't call adverse reactions to such changes cultural imperialism of any kind but rather simple defensiveness by other editors. I have difficulty picturing those editors as the vanguard of some sort of cultural imperialistic campaign. One might even label your effort to remove the offending nomenclature as "cultural imperialism" in that case.Zebulin (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
In any case the BBC isn't keen on dissemination of US cultural imperialism and it would seem that they freely refer to the second world war as world war II as well. Just search their site for "world war" and you will find that they use "world war II" quite frequently. Here's an example: [1]Zebulin (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You know I almost forgot I wrote my original complaint here until I was redirected here again when trying to link or discuss historical American Bias and forgetting that there no separate listing for "American Bias". One person's comment about WWII vs. the Second World War pales in comparison to the actual lack of proper historical record balance and sickening Bias in such wiki's as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_foreign_policy.
This goes to the question of the integrity of the American Wiki controllers who frequently cut off or going along with shouting down international comments, criticism or contributors who have a contrary opinion...often sourced...that get dashed away by the oppression of the American majority with their iron grip administrative lock on certain pages.
The complete lack of any page on "American Bias" goes to the point of the American Wiki masters don't believe there is such a thing and the rest of the world's opinion be damned. A simple statement like "The majority of the world's governments and people (along with Powell's presentation at the U.N.) were unconvinced that Iraq either had WMDs or presented a clear and present danger and preferred to allow the weapons expectors to do their jobs and consider additional sanctions as needed." Now you can search around and maybe find some breadcrumbs hinting that on Wiki, but the way it is presented here does not give that indication...and a complete lack of mention of Curveball or the Downing Street memo within the context without a doubt shows an application of "American Bias" and revisionist history. (since you can buy Tennet's book and use it as a reference)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmd_iraq
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html
International NPOV only exists when you actually enable such view and admit that you likely have your own damn Bias. Wiki is never going to truly expand itself and become more respected internationally until you open it up more internationally and will just become another form of American Propaganda in it's own bubble that believes that "American Bias" doesn't exist or is worthy of it's own discussion. I don't care as much about the damn spelling as it isn't what is coloring or colouring the articles with significant bias....and thus all we have here is American Wikiality!--Thehighlndr (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if it were somehow possible to make an article titled American Bias and not violate wikipedia NPOV standards in writing it, such an article would constitute wikipedia naval gazing were it to address the complaints you raise. Rather than an article such discussion would belong in a project page if anywhere at all. In any event do you believe only Americans demonstrate bias or would you expect a bias article of some kind for every group of humans on the planet? The sheer unreasonable nature of your complaint suggests you're probably simply trolling for indignant replies.Zebulin (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You know the concept or irony is lost for those that define it as the state something of being ironic. That the Wiki stub on Criticism is locked for editing and that on the talk page people are bemoaning the over-management of an article based on self-criticism of wiki is actually truly ironic (by it's non circular definition). To quote directly from the actual article of one of the main criticisms is...
"Editors on Wikinfo, a fork of Wikipedia, similarly argue that new or controversial editors to Wikipedia are often unjustly labeled "trolls" or "problem users" and blocked from editing. The community has also been criticized for responding to complaints regarding an article's quality by advising the complainer to fix the article themselves."
I never suggested any such thing that only Americans had bias, but discussing Cultural Imperialism in the time of Rome and not discussing Rome Imperialism or Bias on a media well defended by Roman citizens would be a similarly exclusionist policy.
One of the fundamental problems I have seen on Wiki is contrary to it's stated goal for NPOV and an International NPOV...non-American contributors are shouted or edited or locked out of useful dialog to help improve the pages or are subsequently ignored. Much like the IP tracking that can now help tell how many Company employees are sanitizing their own pages...it would be good if the IP tracking should the country origin contributions as well as more open minded real NPOV. Some of the best critics of such American Bias or Dogma are within the U.S. and rarely get much of their viewpoints shown on Wiki as they are shouted down. (Chomsky comments on Foreign policy perhaps). Maybe it will be better if Wiki dies as a famous bet has predicted in 4-years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Wikipedia
One more ironic example point (please note what discussion header this is under) is the striking differences in the two American and Canadian Nationalism Wikis that were clearly both written by Americans. That the Canadian one is negative in tone with criticism galore...the American one is beaming with praise and short on criticism. Let alone the irony that the "doctrine of Manifest Destiny" listed in the American one...which is continental expansionism...is strangely missing from the Canadian article and yet the idea that anti-Americanism must be part of being interested in nationalists National Sovereignty is heavily bias and the further claim of hostility...is completely without merit and not surprisingly without a reference. Not wanting someone else to dominate your country is not the same thing as being hostile or attempting to invade the other country. I would like one non-American to reply if they can or perhaps an introspective American out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationalism#Criticism_of_Canadian_nationalism
--Thehighlndr (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split

I split "Canada's response" into its own article, Canadian Cultural Protectionism as it took up a disproportionate amount of this page. Marskell 10:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

One cultures imperialism is cause for the other cultures protectionism - An interesting split that places Canada firmly in the realm of victim - I would guess that you are from the USA. DavidP
As I say above, I'm not sure how it's really "cultural imperialism" when most Canadians voluntarily watch American shows like The Simpsons, Friends, Family Guy, Seinfeld, and so forth. No one is forcing Canadians to watch American shows. They simply attract higher viewership than indigenous programming. Raggaga 02:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about foreign cultures affecting the US? And the US urban/rural divide?

An interesting reversal: What about foreign cultural trappings which have become popular in the US? Are sushi bars and anime Japanese cultural imperialism? Are dim-sum restaurants and bubble-tea shops Chinese cultural imperalism?

I don't think they are; I'm an American living in a major West Coast city and I welcome all of these things. OTOH, there are parts of the country (rural areas, mainly), where even the presence of a Starbucks--let alone a restaurant that serves raw fish--is considered an unwanted intrusion upon the local culture. In this context, though, the tables are often turned--rather than the Starbucks being seen as cultural imperialism by cosmopolitan America directed against rural cultural mores, instead the defenders of the rural culture are often portrayed as ignorant and xenophobic. (And often times, xenophobia does play a role; it's a not uncommon opinion in some parts of the country that drinking cappucinos or lattes is "gay"). Likewise, the sushi bar and other foreign cultural trappings may be rejected solely due to nationalistic sentiments--though the idea of consuming raw fish is offensive to many Americans, regardless of the origins of the practice.

At any rate--it seems that in many cases (and it probably should be stated more clearly in the article) that whether or not a given cultural export is "imperialism" or not seems to be highly dependent as to which parties/cultures the speaker favors.

--EngineerScotty 23:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Cultural Imperialism as a Component of military aggression.

Should we count something as being cultural imperialism if it is a component of military aggression or other physical forms of repression?

For example, China and Tibet. China is physically dominant over Tibet and is trying to erode anything that makes Tibet distinct from China. Is this cultural imperialism, or is it a form of genocide (destroying the people's identity, rather than destroying the people themselves)?

Equally, Japanese efforts to eradicate the Korean identity, and early US efforts to mollify Native American Indians. Are these forms cultural imperialism or a form of (cultural) genocide?

[edit] Link Farming?

User:PhilipO removed two links on the grounds that they were link farming. However, at least one of the links pointed to a website (at Washington State University) which was relevant to the topic (if biased), and definitely not a link farm. I didn't follow the other link. What gives? --EngineerScotty 00:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient greek work out

I just started reading this page and had to laugh, and then comment on this:

"The Greek culture built gyms, theatres and public baths in places that its adherents conquered"

I can just see some poor soul coming away from this sentence wondering what type of rowing machines the Greeks had and what people did before piped MTV.

Then it occured to me that this is a good example of cultural imperialism at work. one world view of a gym and its sporting and social implications overlaying the original purpose of gymnasia, that of a school - albeit for body and mind (another culturaly capitalised concept).

I'm sure the original paragraph wont live for very long, because it is vague, imprecise and incorrect, but hope that this entry serves to keep the little gem remembered - DavidP 15:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new sections

I added a couple of new sections at the bottom, Cultural Diversity & Cultural Fascism, as these are important connected concepts. The Cultural Diversity one I wrote; the Cultural Fascism one is largely lifted from the article on History of United States imperialism, from which I removed it, in favor of placing it here. Kalkin

I have some doubts by the conquest/colonization of the Americas by the European nations. CI is when you force a culture upon others. Except for baptization afaik this has not really happened with the native americans ? (specially in North America)?

One of the first known examples of cultural imperialism was extinction of the Etruscan culture and language caused by the influence of the Roman Empire.[1]</blocvquote> This sounds more like the first example the author could think of, but hasn't the erosion of minority languages/cultures been an ongoing phenonemenon through all history?

[edit] What about literature?

Most of the discussion so far concerns contemporary media like tv, film and (recorded) music. What about the tremendous influence of literature? somewhere someone stated that the British rule in India could not be used as example for cultural imperialism, but what about the school system they set up, the books that were part of the curriculum? There were generations of kids who had/have to read Dickens and Austen and Flaubert and Mollière and Cervantes and whoever else. Wordsworth's daffodils in the Caribbean? Children's stories about snow and sledges? Those authors were used to promote European values. And what about all the criteria for 'good' literature based on Western models? Currently I simply haven't got the time to write something decent about it, but I think it's high time someone did! Sbaina 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] etruscans were the victims of cultural imperialism??

from the article:

"One of the first known examples of cultural imperialism was extinction of the Etruscan culture and language caused by the influence of the Roman Empire.[1]"

Nothing in the link suggests that the fate of the etruscans was anything more or less than old fashioned "military imperialism". That is to say, another country conquered them and formally annexed their territories. Certainly their language died but the vast majority of languages today are threatened. Is that all a result of cultural imperialism? In that case practically every country in the world is a cultural imperialistic power given that most countries have at least one disappearing or recently extinct language within their borders.Zebulin 09:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I've proposed that Cultural colonialism be merged into this article. It seems little more than another term for the same phenomenon; at the very least, the two are sufficiently similar that one article could cover both. Since this article is considerably better-developed (and 'Cultural imperialism' seems to be the more widely-used term), that article should be merged into this one rather than vice versa.

If no objections arise to this proposal, I will carry out the merger myself. Terraxos 00:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Considering imperialism and colonialism are not the same thing. I believe that there should be at least a notation between the difference. Imperialism is simply the economic domination of another land. Colonialism is the physical settlement which dominates both economically and politically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.168.136 (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

i dont think they are the same thing... colonialism is more like just about concurring, but imperialism is like affecting other cultures but not directly about concurring. But anyways a link to cultural colonialism can be given in this page. (like: also see this page thing) ps: sorry for bad language i'm in a hurry
If you're in a hurry, then better not comment. Please remember we are NOT talking about whether colonialism or imperialism are the same things. They clearly are not. We are talking about whether cultural imperialism is the same as cultural colonialism. It would seem to me that they are indeed the same thing: the imposition of one culture over another by either direct or indirect force. --Gilgongo (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)