Defining Culture

From: bjm10_at_cornell.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:41:57 -0500 (EST)


> How can you define a human culture? By two dimensions, I assume.

Polydimensional, dear fellow, polydimensional.

> e.g.: The British One is a culture, the English one is not: it has no
> Geographical limitations because it is in England, in the USA, in Australia
> etcetera.

I am NOT English, thank you very much (and I'm sure that an Englishman will thank me for making sure that I'm not to be confused with him, either).

> e.g.: The Canadian One is not a culture, the USA are: they have a linguistic

There is a Canadian culture. There are also Canadian subcultures.

> I say: Italy has an elder culture; it was born around 1000 a.d.; it is an
> envious, slow, egoistical culture, very deep and wise but also decrepit in
> some aspects and decadent; it envies younger cultures (such as the USA's
> one) but is more wise than those ones.

Mussolini? Looks to me like Italy is still willing to be very foolish.

> China, probably, has an ancient culture. So has India and perhaps Ireland
> (refferring to gaelic language, not to English): note that very ancient

Then you're referring to a non-region, given that even Gaeltachtna speak English these days.

> cultures can resemble childish ones, the cicle could be, well, cyclical.
> England has a culture slightly younger than the Italian one (XII century);

Some English would claim their culture goes back to Alfred the Great...

> Younger cultures are more pragmatical than elder ones, are more explorative,
> more fun-searching and less inside-referred; have less history and
> experience and so can make worse mistakes. They are more aggressive, also,
> than elder ones.

Where does that put Mother Russia?

> Usually, if two are present in the same territory, the younger culture
> crushes the elder one, but takes from the crushed some elements which make
> it older and wiser.

Explain how it is that you speak Italian and not Gothic, in that case...


Powered by hypermail