The UN/France Wants to Control Culture
The UN moves the power of cultural evolution from the people to the state - Iran bans western movies.
I was browsing through Redstate.org (a Republican blog - or the Republican blog) and noticed this interesting piece of news:
"The United Nations cultural body adopted a treaty to protect and promote cultural diversity on Thursday despite opposition from the United States..."
During the last 100 000 years, cultural evolution has played a significant role in human "evolution". Biological adaptation is not needed because of our ability to create culture. Now a part of this significant power has been given to the UN. Why should any state, or some wannabe-world government, decide what's beneficial? Don't we (not the state) have the right to decide what we do with our cultures?
"The Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) overwhelmingly approved the accord, which supporters such as France say will help defend linguistic and cultural diversity from the negative effects of globalisation."
Negative effects of globalisation? Modern globalization (especially the cultural part) is based entirely on individual freedom. McDonalds won't show up in your country if there are no markets (free consumers willing to buy hamburgers) for its burgers. France thinks that this is a bad thing. After all - the people are too ignorant and uncivilized to decide what's good for them.
"The convention won the backing of 148 countries and was opposed by only two, Israel and the United States, at a UNESCO plenary meeting."
The quality of UN decisions is apparent if only two countries out of the whole bunch opposed the treaty.
"U.S. officials fear the treaty will restrict free trade and the free flow of ideas, but France hailed it as a victory that would help countries defend their national culture and arts."
In other words - France is worried that the people might not want the same things as the state does.
"It also sees the convention as a weapon to fight what many French people regard as a threat of American cultural domination and an onslaught of Hollywood films."
This "domination" wouldn't exist if the people didn't want to see American movies. The French obviously want to be in control of people's taste.
I choose not to see many Finnish movies because, based on my experience, the majority sucks big time. If a French consumer wants to see a Hollywood film rather than a French film, then who are we to say that the person is somehow wrong? Our freedom to choose and pick according to our taste should not be violated by any state - this should be incredibly obvious.
"'This is major progress in a world which must protect cultural diversity and organise a dialogue of cultures that respects all,' French President Jacques Chirac said in a written statement. "
Chirac is an idiot. This is about boosting the state's rights at the expense of an individual.
"France... subsidies the arts heavily and sets quotas on national and foreign films was a driving force behind the convention."
Sources:
The Star
Iran bans western films
I was browsing through Redstate.org (a Republican blog - or the Republican blog) and noticed this interesting piece of news:
"The United Nations cultural body adopted a treaty to protect and promote cultural diversity on Thursday despite opposition from the United States..."
During the last 100 000 years, cultural evolution has played a significant role in human "evolution". Biological adaptation is not needed because of our ability to create culture. Now a part of this significant power has been given to the UN. Why should any state, or some wannabe-world government, decide what's beneficial? Don't we (not the state) have the right to decide what we do with our cultures?
"The Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) overwhelmingly approved the accord, which supporters such as France say will help defend linguistic and cultural diversity from the negative effects of globalisation."
Negative effects of globalisation? Modern globalization (especially the cultural part) is based entirely on individual freedom. McDonalds won't show up in your country if there are no markets (free consumers willing to buy hamburgers) for its burgers. France thinks that this is a bad thing. After all - the people are too ignorant and uncivilized to decide what's good for them.
"The convention won the backing of 148 countries and was opposed by only two, Israel and the United States, at a UNESCO plenary meeting."
The quality of UN decisions is apparent if only two countries out of the whole bunch opposed the treaty.
"U.S. officials fear the treaty will restrict free trade and the free flow of ideas, but France hailed it as a victory that would help countries defend their national culture and arts."
In other words - France is worried that the people might not want the same things as the state does.
"It also sees the convention as a weapon to fight what many French people regard as a threat of American cultural domination and an onslaught of Hollywood films."
This "domination" wouldn't exist if the people didn't want to see American movies. The French obviously want to be in control of people's taste.
I choose not to see many Finnish movies because, based on my experience, the majority sucks big time. If a French consumer wants to see a Hollywood film rather than a French film, then who are we to say that the person is somehow wrong? Our freedom to choose and pick according to our taste should not be violated by any state - this should be incredibly obvious.
"'This is major progress in a world which must protect cultural diversity and organise a dialogue of cultures that respects all,' French President Jacques Chirac said in a written statement. "
Chirac is an idiot. This is about boosting the state's rights at the expense of an individual.
"France... subsidies the arts heavily and sets quotas on national and foreign films was a driving force behind the convention."
Sources:
The Star
Iran bans western films
Labels: english
posted by MSandt at 1:34 AM
2 Comments:
Many Christian Republicans in red states would want to regulate Hollywood movies very much too since they see in such popular mainstream movies nudity, profanity and promotion of evil liberal leftist values of the Democratic Party. Of course they wouldn't ban Hollywood altogether and they would still welcome movies like The Passion of The Christ. Christian conservatives, Jacques Chirac and Iranian mullahs are all right-wingers yet that doesn't mean they are strong advocates of individual rights.
Many Christian Republicans in red states would want to regulate Hollywood movies very much too since they see in such popular mainstream movies nudity, profanity and promotion of evil liberal leftist values of the Democratic Party.
Yeah - I guess we are too familiar with how the Republicans are trying to dictate the moral behavior of the world. They're not really any better than the Democrats.
A recent example:
http://www.ratemyboobies.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home