|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Un-Categorised Comments
- 2 Incorrect Figures?
- 3 Picture
- 4 influence of culture / assimilation of immigrants split
- 5 /* Anime */
- 6 Self-Reference
- 7 This article contradicts itself, or at least is incomplete.
- 8 OR?
- 9 Merging of Articles
- 10 Language
- 11 Writing systems
- 12 Requested move
- 13 Some Changes
- 14 Just saying...
- 15 American boasts
- 16 Neutrality
- 17 Different meaning?
- 18 Expanding the Wikimedia
- 19 Accurate?
- 20 Direction
- 21 Hollywood more influential than television?
- 22 Internet
- 23 Critcism section
For example, there is a widely held belief in Australia that "American spellings" are a modern intrusion. Because of a backlash to the perceived Americanization of Australian English, there is now a trend to reinsert the "u" in words such as harbor/harbour, color/colour, flavor/flavour, honor/honour, etc..
When were the u's ever used in Australia? Australia has always used an English which is closer to British English than U.S. --Kuan 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this also refer to immigrants becoming a part of American culture in America? --Anon
- Yes, that is the definition I am most familiar with. However, the more general term of cultural assimilation would probably be where that type of info would go. --maveric149, Wednesday, July 3, 2002
- Americanisation is a word used by non-Americans. Both s and z spellings are valid in British English though some countries prefer one over the other with the s being predominant. Hence I think this should instead be spelt using the spelling that people who use the word would use: Americanisation. --Kuan 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Americanisation is the a term used for the perceived influence America has on the culture of other countries, substituing local culture with something of an American culture.
I removed "perceived" from the above sentence, as it implies that the idea of this influence is not grounded in reality. I think it's quite obvious that US culture has an enormous impact on the world. The debatable issues are 1) does the United States actively persue Americanization, or is it embraced, and 2) is it a bad thing? --Stephen Gilbert
I think "percieved" should be re-added. There is no confusion. It means what it says. Simply that there may or may not be an influence. Not that it is not grounded in reality. It is hard to define what Americanized means. Such as in negative circumstances like Britain's increasing love for fast food is often mentioned Americanization. But this could be debated. So even more reason to add the word back in. No doubt it has had an anormous impact on the world, but isn't it meaning more "in the present" rather than things like medicine. Because not only America has medicine and sanitation. I think it's more about general culture. (this is also in reply to crazytalk below) Papa leaf 05:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. "Perceived" does not mean it's not real. It means in this context that Americinization is a belief that America is influencing the culture of other countries.
Shouldn't this be under its American spelling?
I object to the sentence:
- "It [Americanization] is often used in a negative context."
What about people using cell phones, automobiles and Smallpox vaccinations? People using those items are not known to curse America for making their life better (I have no idea who discovered Smallpox vaccines, but you get my jist). Also, the term "often", if used, should be backed up by sources. I replaced the sentence with:
- "When encountered unwillingly or perforce, it has a negative connotation; when sought voluntarily, it has a positive connotation."
To me, that sentence lets the world have the good with the bad, although it still seems a bit dark. (I did use "perforce" - one word - on purpose, rather than the two-worded "per force".) Before reverting the change, please debate here first. I know it is not a popular stance to take in this day and age, so forgive me for defending my country's honor. --CrazyTalk 01:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's a tad ironic that the three items you mention, mobile phones, cars and the smallpox vaccine, were not invented/developed in the USA. The car was invented in Germany, smallpox vaccine in the UK and mobile phones were not invented by any country on their own. But your point is still valid. Jizz 23:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's clear that you are desperately trying to defend your countries honour. But step back for a minute and look to see if it is insulting. We all know that when we say Americanisation we do not mean things such as inventions. Papa leaf 05:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- 100% agree with you there. This page is not about the good things which the U.S. does in the world. No one calls those things Americanisation. When the term Americanisation is used it is used negatively most of the time. This article should be written by non-Americans as they are not the ones which use the term. --Kuan 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wouldnt it be less ambiguous to call it "US culture" than "american culture"? The term american is ambiguous as it also refers to the other people of the continent besides the US residents. If theres no opposing it, I suggest that it be changed for clarifying purposes.LtDoc 01:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Amen. logologist 02:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- This debate has been done to death. In the English language, "American" is the proper adjective for things from the U.S. It's unfortunate and potentially confusing, but so are a lot of things in English, and it's not for an NPOV encyclopedia to try to change usage. Best, Meelar (talk) 13:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Aside from "unfortunate" and "potentially confusing", you forgot "culturally imperialistic" and "offensive". I could thorw in "appopriation" and some the very Americanization of the Latin America (by a huge pressure applied by the US) to the causes of it. Besides that, "US culture" is a term which causes no confusion whatsoever, isnt offensive to anybody, and more than adequately substitutes the term "american". Also, I do believe that is due to a NPOV encyclopedia to minimize its bias in the articles. If it is not for a encyclopedia to do so, whom should do it??? So far we have a pro-change of 2-1.LtDoc 22:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
LtDoc, I think the article would be much the worse if it did not reflect worldwide ussage. However, the association of the word "America" for the US is perhaps one of the prime examples of Americanization and the article should probably call attention to that. In any case as, unfortunate word ussages go, I think many uses of the term cultural imperialism ranks up there (along with the afforementioned use of America) in the worst of list do to its ambiguity and appropriation (i.e. it means other things than the cultural component of the historical practice of imperialism).Sammydirectproduct 15:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Well I am British too and don't like the suggested use of "US culture", but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. This is not a British Encyclopedia and it doesn't need to be done our way, it should be done in a way that it is factual and makes sense to everyone. America does after all include North,South and Central America.. HOWEVER, I don't feel it needs to be changed because it states in the first line "the influence of the UNITED STATES of America" on other countries. Perhaps a bit could be added about the influence the US has on other parts of America? Like the Americanisation of Latin America that has been mentioned.
- Let me ask the Brits here something. Isn't the "appropriation" of a larger geographical entity (America) as the toponym and adjectival form of a nation-state (with which many geographical "Americans" would not want to be associated) similar to the appropriation of the larger geographical term "British" (refering to the entire British Isles, which include Ireland, Mann, and the Channel Islands) to refer to a particular political entity, with which many under other governments (Ireland, etc.) would not want to be associated? In fact, there are many countries which appropriate larger geographical entities (Columbia, Syria, Macedonia, Dominican Republic, Ireland, etc.) or racial/linguistic families (Turkey, Iran, etc.) as the name of their states. These sometimes cause confusion or dispute, but should we stop calling Marquez a "Columbian" writer because it hurts Hugo Chavez's feelings? It seems to me it would be more invidious to name your state something which does the opposite, which necessarily leaves out some indigenous group in the nomenclature (ie. Hindustan, Russia, Israel, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
sould the americanization of anime be put in this article or sould there be a seprate one
- It already kinda has been, at the start of the Media section. WikiSlasher 13:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
At the end of the paragraph 'Media and popular culture', Elvis and Michael Jackson are noted as selling over 500 million albums, yet Michael Jackson is somehow "best-selling" at 100 million albums. One of the figures is wrong, presumably. NimbleJack (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
What we need here is a picture of someone eating a McDonald's sandwich in front of a cinema with blockbuster posters, preferably on the Champs Elysees or something like that... Jules LT 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
influence of culture / assimilation of immigrants split
Americanization's two meanings are completely distinct, so I think the article should be split into
- Americanisation(assimilation) (purely US phenomenon, so you have US spelling)
- and Americanization(influence)
Or something like that. The first one would be quickly populated with the US-specific information in cultural assimilation and the information in melting pot that isn't specific to the word. Jules LT 15:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- US spelling would be with a "z", and UK with a "S", so shouldn't it be Americanization(assimilation) and Americanisation(influence) (the latter being a phenomenon said to affect non-US countries)? Andjam 15:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're right. Anyway, this article must be split. I wish I had the time Jules.LT 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article should be split, but I'm in the same boat as Jules here.ProfessorFokker 09:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Split theres a difference between Americanization of a country and Cultural Americanization.
this is what i came to the artical to learn about was the americanizing of the early immigrants to becoming american like the sinozization of aboriginal chinese to becoming chinese. not the spead of american culture over the globe 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
/* Anime */
The Harem Jutsu was intact in the Naruto dub, so the example really doesn't work. I'm too lazy to find another example, could someone else do this? SA9097
....What are you talking about?
- Don't be meanies, he's askings a question >< he mighta justs put it in the wrong place or stuffies...I don't watch Naruto so I dunnos..maybes you could try asking your question on the Naruto page? o.o ~ SnuggleBunny 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- "The title of this article is itself ironically an Americanisation as the spelling of the word used first is indicative of American English dominating the Wikipedia project."
Isn't there a rule against self-referencing Wikipedia in the articles (if not, there should be, it's a little jarring)? Plus, I don't think it's very ironic that the article discussing a phenomenon would itself be an instance of that phenomenon; for example, an article on the English language wouldn't make the statement, "this article is ironically written in that very language." This sentence should be removed. 220.127.116.11 14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This article contradicts itself, or at least is incomplete.
The entire "Media" section talks about changing material for the American culture, while both definitions at the top define Americanization as changing culture itself to become more American. Neither the American culture nor the American audience, can become Americanized. Neither can the culture which provided the material that's changed. The BBC wouldn't have been Americanized if NOVA had changed "maize" to "corn". And if the BBC isn't forced to change, then there's no Americanization occurring, according to the two definitions provided.
Is the answer to this contradiction to add a new definition which means making something from another culture palatable to American audiences or consumers? The disambig argument gets stronger, if that's done. 18.104.22.168 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I had hoped for far more from this article: sample questions from U.S. citizenship exams, statistics on United States novels in foreign translation, or a survey of U.S. television shows in international syndication. Quite frankly this page says far more about the spread of American culture than what I read here - and the few assertions about United States media are unsourced and dubious. One could dispute the claims by noting how the United States is one of the few countries where the standard method of screening foreign language films is with subtitles rather than dubbing, or by tracking the influence that international box office receipts have had in de-Americanizing American motion pictures, or by contesting that Hollywood remakes certain foreign language pictures for economic rather than cultural reasons: the United States is the only country whose domestic market is large enough to finance the highest level of production values. Having read that section with gritted teeth, I scrolled down in search of something better and found nothing. Surely this article could improve. 22.214.171.124 10:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Merging of Articles
The Americanization page and the other Americanization page are basically the same thing. They should be merged into one article entitled Americanization. Also, in the Americanization (immigration) page, the trivia section says the exact same thing as the Americanization (foreign culture and media) page does. I'm somewhat of a Wikipedia noob, and I've never merged an article or anything, but I guess I'll attempt it now or in the near future...or should I wait for a response...? Ah, whatever I'm just going to leave this comment and if nothing happens for a few days I'll probably just try merging them myself. I'm not even sure if I wrote my signature properly :(– Arnesh 02:43 16 November 2006
- I think it would be better to make disambiguation page as it has more than one meaning. GeoW 10:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Because of American influence English words are becoming common virtually in all the languages of the world. Not even to mention this fact in the article is a big omission. Also, wearing jeans and baseball caps can be considered a sign of Americanization, as well as the popularity of rock music, hip-hop, jazz, and such genres as westerns and gangster movies. The article is obviously written by people who hate America and who want to create an impression that the American influence in the world is limited to silly things such as Coca-Cola. Пипумбрик (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm really hoping that last sentence is a tongue in cheek joke and not serious. Aside from that, I'm not entirely sure that the expansion and popularity of American English really fits into this definition of Americanization. American and British English are simply two forms of the same language, with people in different regions favoring one over the other. In order to present the point in the article that American English is gaining in popularity due to Americanization, you'd have to link sources proving that the expansion of American culture has somehow supplanted the original "culture" of favoring British English. If it was never a part of the culture to learn British English, then no culture exchange has happened, hence it does not meet the definition of Americanization. I believe you'd be rather hard pressed to find said evidence. I do see where you are coming from, however, I think it's a theory that doesn't have any proof behind it. I also reject the fact British English somehow presents a "worldwide view" while American English does not. Why is British English more international friendly than American English? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
With the rise of social media and things such as mobile devices with American English spell checkers, this really is happening in Australia. Young people are not only using American spellings, but changing pronunciations rather than the British way we were taught as children. The older generations and those with closer British ties see it as a negative thing, a dilution of Australian culture, but others see it as a chance to ditch the irrationalities in the English language. We're not French, so why spell it Centre? PS. The British English spelling is more international friendly because more countries around the globe (The British Commonwealth, and break-away countries), and more countries that use English as a second language, use British English than American English. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I've commented out the writing systems tag. Can anyone justify this tag at all? If not, I'll entirely remove it. – FrederikVds 14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
IMO, this should be moved to Americanisation. This article applies to all countries in the world, except the US, so using US spelling is a little paradoxical. – FrederikVds 14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Of course this article concerns the United States - its actions are what cause the phenomenon internationally. Americanization can be observed in the immigrant population of the United States as well. It's not necessary to move from a stable title here. Dekimasuよ! 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Shouldn't the fact that the article is about American influence in other countries mean it should also use American spelling? As Dekimasu pointed out, it's also about the influence on immigrants in the US as well. TJ Spyke 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dekimasu and TJ Spyke exactly.--Húsönd 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I support this under the basis of "Strong national ties to a topic" under WP:ENGVAR (although in this case it is multi-national, but the obvious point remains). Mathmo Talk 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the article as i feel it could be quiet a good article. Its my first time editing a page so be easy. I added a section regarding big american business and the influence they have on the world stage, also i have added a bit to media regarding us tv shows. I hope to add more about hollywood and american movies abroad, please let me know what you think of the changes, thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davewit13 (talk • contribs) 01:22, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
That can of soda picture at the beginning, doesn't look like a real soda brand. I think it is from a television program of film. Do you actually think there is a brand of soda called "U.S. Soda"??? It's clearly not an authentic example. If you are going to have an example, it should be of something that isn't from a set. Contralya 21:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
IMHO this article seems to be more about America's achievements and seems to be somewhat boastful. It doesn't seem to have much to do with 'Americanisation'. I think you'll find that 'Americanisation' has more of a negative meaning around the world, as most people see it as an intrusion on their own cultures. I think that this article should be changed to convey that. I don't mean to offend anyone, but what I say is pretty much a universal truth. Zestos (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Zestos 22:40, 06 March 2008 (UTC)
Point me in the direction of some links that back up this so called 'universal truth'. I mean links that prove without a shadow of a doubt that every living thing in the UNIVERSE agrees with what you claim is the truth. Good luck and thanks in advance! AnonEditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you can't take some minor criticism. It's not really an issue that you will find in the news, but it IS general public opinion amongst many Europeans. I only have first hand experience to back this up with, but I assure you that it is true. People don't neccessarily dislike the US, but many do resent US culture diluting their own. I know that uncited info is unliked by Wikipedia, but I still think that it deserves a mention.I'm not US-hating. I LIKE the USA. I just feel that this article does not represent the views of some non-Americans. Are there any other non-Americans that can back me up on this? Zestos (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
"Before the mid-twentieth century, however, Americanization referred to the process by which immigrants became American."
This is flat out untrue. This is still the primary meaning of the word.
- I support your sentiment, in that the text is original research and unsourced. We should simply explain that the word has two meanings. Further to that, and to hopefully avoid the article leaning too far the other way, I feel it's worth pointing out that to call that the primary meaning of the word fails another Wikipedia requirement: the taking of a global view. Outwith the U.S., it may not be; certainly for me as a European/Brit/Scot, it's not a use I'd ever heard or considered. The "late twentieth century" definition is the primary definition from my POV! ;) – Kieran T (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I got here folowing a link from the "full monty" WP entry, where this is refered to a british musical getting adapted for the US market. Like the popular remakes of "the office" for example or japanese movies ("the ring"). It makes sense to me, but not being a native speaker I don't know if it's correct. But its almost the opposite of what the artcle describes now. Could anyone clarify? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
While I understand what you are saying, and indeed the word may be used in this way (incorrectly), if we call the adaptation of films and things of the like for an American audience "Americanization", by the same token we should be calling he adaptation of a film to say, a Hungarian audience "Hungarianisation" :) . Saberswordsmen1 (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Expanding the Wikimedia
The entire photo album consists exclusively of fast food restaurants around the world, for obvious reasons it should be expanded.
Just wanted to know if the opening paragraph was meant to convey the current POV:
- "Americanization - When encountered ..., it usually has a negative connotation; ... it sometimes has a positive connotation."
This article is in good direction, just need more info. Overall very good direction as it stands right now. Need more examples, especially American pop culture examples. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Very Good? "Since American movie industry spends a lot of money and make the most essentially exciting, explosive and grander scale movies like Star Wars, Titanic, The Matrix, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan people in other countries with televisions will tend to watch it and some of them admire American ingeniuty and big thinking and may get inspired by it"
I agree. Changed it a bit, so as to make it less insulting and more comprehensible.
Hollywood more influential than television?
The article states "Hollywood, the American film industry, dominates most of the world's cinema markets (India is an exception with Bollywood). It is the chief medium by which people across the globe see American fashions, customs, scenery and way of life." Do people in other countries see American culture more in Hollywood films than in the many US television shows broadcast worldwide? Maybe so, but is there a source for this? It seems like a bold claim.Hobson (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm Belgian and I say that this whole article is complete nonsense. There is no Americanisation going on anymore. We are more exposed to British music (look at the European music charts, few or no American artists are there) and television. It's true that many films are from Hollywood, but even that is waning (my own experience/feeling). American television programs used to be more popular in the 90s, but since then I rarely even see them anymore. They have been replaced by local productions, British productions or French ones. The English that is used in European countries is a mix of British and American English. We never say 'mart', but we do always say 'shop'. Children programming is dominated by local productions and Japanese ones. Music by the British (in general). Films by Americans. Technology by Eastern-Asians and Americans. Cars by Germans and the French. Food (highly depending on the country) is here not particularly Americanised. We don't have Burgerking, we don't have all those fastfood shops. We only have MacDonalds and Quick (which is French by the way). We have our own supermarkets, which are mainly from France, Belgium or Germany (Delhaize, Lidl, Aldi, Carefour, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Such American inventions as the Internet, Facebook, Google, EBay, Twitter, etc. are very influential all over the world. In fact, they are changing the world for the better, as the events in the Arab world show. Isn't it necessary to mention these facts in the article?Пипумбрик (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would avoid taking credit for the invention of the internet as we know it. A Brit invented the World Wide Web ;-) Zestos (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Internet was an American invention and was already in full operation in 1971, 18 years BEFORE Berners-Lee (the Brit) wrote the http coding scheme for www. Credit for WWW goes to CERN, an international agency based in Switzerland which employed him & his coauthor. credit for Internet goes to US Defense Department. Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The entire Criticism section of this article is based on an opinion piece by Allan Brian Ssenyonga. According to the cited website, http://www.globalenvision.org/library/33/1273, he is an Ugandan freelance writer for The New Times, an English daily in Rwanda. Is his opinion a widely accepted position/opinion?
Also, most of the section is a copy and paste from one paragraph in the cited opinion article at http://www.globalenvision.org/library/33/1273. Compare the first sentence of the section in Wikipedia to the source that reads "Critics now say globalization is nothing more than the imposition of American culture on the entire world." This is almost an exact copy and who exactly are these critics? The "critics" are not named.
The entire second sentence of the section is copy and pasted from the cited source, including the missing period after "U.S.A" [sic]. This is from the source: "Proponents of the school of thought contend that countries like U.S.A are using the globalization as an engine of "corporate imperialism"; one which tramples over the human rights of developing societies, claims to bring prosperity, yet often simply amounts to plundering and profiteering."
Compare the third sentence of the section to this text from the cited source: "some people are now arguing that globalization has mainly benefited the already strong economies of the world and it has given them leverage to not only trade with the rest of the world but to also influence their general lifestyles and politics." Again, copy and pasted from the source.