From: niall@nmsu.edu (Niall Graham)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: My Ugly American post for the year....
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:21:20 GMT
	<NIALL.92Oct4163805@scheria.nmsu.edu> <23374@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Organization: Computing Research Lab

Gary Newell writes:
>In article <NIALL.92Oct4163805@scheria.nmsu.edu>, niall@nmsu.edu (Niall Graham) writes:
>> For Gary Newell...
>> Once upon a time, in the U.S., it was possible to tell whether a big-band
>> or blues artist was from St. Louis, Chigago, New Orleans (or probably
>> a dozen other cities) by their *style* of play.   
>> This is of course a thing of the past because music is particularly
>> tender prey for the monster created by mass communication.
>> Now do we really want to see the rest of the world being similarly
>> homogenized? 
>
>First of all I would need you to answer some questions. First off, you
>seem to be implying that the quality of music was somehow better when one
>could determine if a big band or blues artist was from a particular part
>of the country. I'm sure you'd agree that this is simply your opinion.

I'd agree that the converse is simply yours.
Now don't type words into my mouth.

>I would guess that others might point out that the things that made
>one area unique from another did not suddenly disappear but rather with
>increased access individuals were able to choose which techniques
>and ideas they liked and which they did not - they were then able to
>focus on an individual vision of what their music should be rather than be
>bound by the limited resources and ideas present in their particular
>area of the country. 

It's patently obvious what happened.  
You are merely describing the phenomenon.  
Nowadays with their greater choice of "techniques and ideas" the 
youth of America and elsewhere are "focusing their individual vision" 
on drum machines and samplers.  
Is Vanilla Ice one of the visionaries you had in mind?

And which areas of the country are you accusing of 
having limited resources and ideas?

>Clearly this "homogenization" did more to empower the
>individual in his search for a unique and to him/her superior form of
>music than would have been done had this person been limited to only
>the ideas that surrounded him/her.

Your underlying assumption being that regions of the U.S.
were in complete isolation before the overwhelming influence
of television etc arrived.  There was plenty of access to other
cultures in the past.   Regions weren't being bombarded with
Hollywood view of the universe though.

> So the problem I see with your views is that you make a value judgement that
>implies that the result of homogenized cultures is somehow inferior to
>that which one sees from cultures which are isolated or whose exposure
>to outside cultures is limited. I don't buy that premise...

I made no such assertion.  Again, you attempt to shove words into my mouth. 
I merely provided a plain example, chosen in the sincere
but mistaken belief that you would be able to comprehend.
Any other inference is the product of paranoia or malice.

>> Gary Newell writes:
>> >In three hundred years, should we be
>> >attempting to keep cultures from developing in an effort to "preserve"
>> >them? 
>> Economic development, and preservation of culture are not
>> irreconcilable objectives.  And there is no reason for
>> you to suppose that they must be.

> True - and in fact I do not.  I would say that those who argue in support of
>laws which limit the import of ideas or foreign culture are the ones who
>do not recognize that this is the case.

Laws?  I said nothing about laws.
You are again arguing against a straw man of your own construction.

You can argue against any position you want here, as you often do.
But please do so without attributing any of your delusional arguments 
to me.  

Niall Graham        Brian to crowd:  But you are all individuals
Los Alamos          Crowd in unison: YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!