Talk:Culture of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Culture (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fischer's Theory[edit]

This single book gets an exposition that is almost twice as long as the main body of the section on regional variation itself (of which Fischer's theory is a subsection). There are quite literally thousands of books discussing regional culture variation in the United States, and hundreds that are much more recent than 1989. I've never read the book and know little about the subject, but I must ask: is this guy's theory (which sounds kind of facile anyway) really that important? And if it is, there should at least be some explanation of why it deserves special attention and an exposition of such great length. Is his idea a now a general consensus among U.S. ethnographers/ social historians? Also, the name Paul Berinde appears at the very start of this subsection but is never mentioned again. Who is he? Someone who knows about the topic could maybe clean it up or add some explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, both with your argument that undue weight is placed on Fischer's theory, and that is sounds kind of facile. I also agree that if it is that important, there should be some explanation of why it is. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Cultural Supoerpower"[edit]

Alongside the UK and Japan shouldn't we mention the fact the US is often regarded as a "cultural superpower"? Quite a significant amount of articles suggest this (including Wikipedia pages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

+ China; + USSR; + Australia...but of course.../-:ᾃᾃάῂφῺא♥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Often regarded without reliable sources is original research at best; so please provide these articles in high quality neutral sources which unambiguously state this (I did not even know the term cultural superpower existed, so you may need to provide a reliable source to that term as well). Wikipedia articles are no reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Salad Bowl?[edit]

The lead says "The United States has traditionally been thought of as a melting pot, however beginning in the 1960s and continuing on in the present day, the country trends towards cultural diversity, pluralism and the image of a salad bowl instead." My question is what cultural diversity? What pluralism? What salad bowl?

I realize the media pushes this line since it is consistent with the "culture war" they are trying to conduct. However, the bulk of the country speaks English, as opposed to years past when immigrants often spoke Yiddish, Italian, German, Japanese or Chinese. Some Spanish is used, but not inconsistent with past experience with immigrants.

As opposed to past practices, blacks, whites and Asians mix, more or less in harmony. They mixed not at all prior to the 1940s or so (Hawaii excepted). Whites marry blacks. This was a felony in many states 60 years ago. In South America, people don't think in terms of "black or white" and America is pretty much following this path, it seems.

People did not cross religious boundaries years back. Catholics and Protestants did not interact, never mind Jewish and Christians.

People dress uniformly sloppy. Sixty years ago, one could look at a person's clothes and tell if he were upper class or not. But not today. And, yes, people dress up "in costume" on occasion, but costumes are more nostalgic than defining. Kilts? Yes, but not at work!

In the past, one could look at skin pigmentation and pretty much tell what your place was in society. This is not possible either.

I think pretty much we have a single culture. What people wanted to believe in the past is that we had a "melting pot" when we didn't except for Europeans. Now we do, and it's for everyone. The media is full of beans, as usual. The material should be rm from the lead. It is incorrect and irrelevant. What we had in the past was a "salad bowl! But the dominant white culture did not want to believe it! Student7 (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation[edit]

There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Social Interaction[edit]

I find this article very informative, however I believe what is missing is american social interaction as a subject. This would differentiate from other cultures where, for example, formal and informal encounters are very distinct, or casual interaction between strangers may be more prominent or less frequent. This can of course vary from individual to individual, but speaking in general terms this American social behavior can and has, particularly through media, influenced how other cultures around expect Americans to behave in any social situation partly due to our idea of social equality (No nobility) and God given respect and dignity which may be in other cultures recognized through a series of achievements or positions in society (e.i. education, political, financial). Although behaviors can be very generally classified by social status such as education and income (as pointed out in the article), I find social interaction to be quite different in such that although the circumstances by which interaction is initiated may be dependent on social hierarchy, the nature of that interaction and the behavior of the participants is often independent. I have observed this difference after living in another culture (German). In American culture I find it typically much easier to 'buddy up' than some other cultures. It would be nice here to see some discussion for or against this hypothesis. (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) T Day

Shouldn't this article be locked/uneditable?[edit]

It seems like an editable article on such a subject could go awry pretty quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)