You can compare the impact of culture on all societies if you keep it general, but down to the specifics, you'd struggle on every culture if you hadn't experienced it first hand and knew all the subtleties. But definitely, the cultures of some of the other continents of the world are almost alien to me when it boils down to that level of intricacy.

 

As for the television and culture, something I learned last year was that in a couple of African countries (i really can't remember which one to be exact, such an ignorant git - in my defence it was over a year ago when I read it) where they were having trouble with womens rights and their status as simple vessels for giving birth, they were trying out different methods for reducing the birth rate. Giving out condoms made an impact (though was limited as many men refused to wear them), encouraging education for women and keeping them in schools for longer made an impact (but was limited because many men didn't like this, and also because for many girls it only delayed the first pregnancy by a year or two) but the factor that they found that made the biggest difference (and I hasten to add, only for a certain type of culture across a couple of countries) was the introduction of a television into the family home. Many people began mimicking those they saw on tv and enjoyed the characters in the trashy shows. It introduced thoughts on living that they had previously never considered as a possibility, even though it was coming to them through a very mainstream way, and probably not in a way that would be deemed 'perfect advice'. I just thought it was interesting that certain cultures react differently to different things because of the way that they are structured and their previous influences.

 

Whereas in another country they found that the way to improve things was to make school uniforms free for girls. This didn't work in other areas because it all depends on all the tiny little differing facets of your culture that decides how the people respond to different changes compared to other people.

Back to Western differences. One thing I've noticed massively is the difference in political involvement between different nations and the likelihood to back protests and strikes that are being made by other people. People in Britain are very slow to strike and because of the media setup they are vilified by many for doing so as it's seen as a negative thing to do. It's often seen as not pulling your weight. In other countries, such as France, it is seen as the sign of a healthy democracy to be striking. The ability to strike is celebrated and there are strikes all the time. This has a lot to do with the cultural impact of the French Revolution compared to Britain's history involving Oliver Cromwell and our lack of permanent removal of royalty. Indeed, France's actions in the French Revolution were to some extent influenced by Britain's previous difficulties with their monarchy and the fact that they didn't get shut when they had the chance.

 

So with that you can see that other nearby cultures can influence your own as you do not wish to repeat the mistakes (or if you wish to copy the successes) of others. Other cultures influencing others happens with immigration, too, and that's obviously a very diverse topic.

I've missed being on a messageboard where I can just type out everything I think haha. Sorry for the constant posting people!

Back to Western differences. One thing I've noticed massively is the difference in political involvement between different nations and the likelihood to back protests and strikes that are being made by other people. People in Britain are very slow to strike and because of the media setup they are vilified by many for doing so as it's seen as a negative thing to do. It's often seen as not pulling your weight. In other countries, such as France, it is seen as the sign of a healthy democracy to be striking. The ability to strike is celebrated and there are strikes all the time. This has a lot to do with the cultural impact of the French Revolution compared to Britain's history involving Oliver Cromwell and our lack of permanent removal of royalty. Indeed, France's actions in the French Revolution were to some extent influenced by Britain's previous difficulties with their monarchy and the fact that they didn't get shut when they had the chance.

 

So with that you can see that other nearby cultures can influence your own as you do not wish to repeat the mistakes (or if you wish to copy the successes) of others. Other cultures influencing others happens with immigration, too, and that's obviously a very diverse topic.

 

Australia seems to take after UK attitudes it seems... here it is usually a negative thing to do. The media usually vilify it too. I saw heaps of this sort of thing when I was involved with Occupy here... the first thing to be shouted was usually 'get a job', 'hippies', 'take a shower', 'dole bludgers' etc etc. It's seen as a get back to work, pull your own weight thing.

Also, I don't know if it's just me, but our culture seems hell-bent on logic usually being the best way to solve everything.

 

We also seem to have a rather violent culture... at least to non-confrontational me.

True logic is the best way to deal with things (in my opinion), providing you have the right combination of logic of how to solve a situation and also the ability to logically understand emotion and the role it has to play on matters. The latter being important so you can see how to influence others in a positive way and have them look after themselves. The most logical way (based purely on results) around something may not be the best if you consider some of the negative factors which would take place if you took emotion out of the equation. You have to understand how people will react to certain things. The sociological impact of what is done. But then there is a logic behind that too, so once again logic is the way. The main problem is that people are often misinformed and their logic is distorted through mistruths.

 

Then there's the cultural differences that show that people all over world think in different ways. Take genital mutilation for example. It is seen as barbaric in the western world (and indeed plenty of other places) but it is still practised in other places. Now it would be easy to say you are to ban these things because there is no humane logic behind it past control of women. Unfortunately, simply holding that fact doesn't change you chances of decreasing it's prevalence in some cultures. In some cultures, as much as it seems illogical to some, the answer is not to ban it outright but to aim for a long time plan aiming to eradicate it gradually. People generally don't take well to other cultures coming in and demanding changes be made to what for many is a sacred institution. There are girls right now somewhere being mutilated, but even though it doesn't sound logical, the correct thing to do for the long term would not be to take them away from their parents. It would be for a gradual (though as fast as realistically possible) move away from such practices through education. Otherwise the practice will live on. You will save one girl but the problem will persist. more children will be born and all you will have managed is to isolate yourself from gaining access to that culture. You would be rejected. And it would be understandable because to those people they see no harm in genital mutilation, but they do see harm in you taking their children away or raising their children for them.

 

I guess it comes down to it being that the logical way being something more than some people acknowledge. It still boils down to the logical way in the end, it just may not appear to be that.

True logic is the best way to deal with things (in my opinion), providing you have the right combination of logic of how to solve a situation and also the ability to logically understand emotion and the role it has to play on matters. The latter being important so you can see how to influence others in a positive way and have them look after themselves. The most logical way (based purely on results) around something may not be the best if you consider some of the negative factors which would take place if you took emotion out of the equation. You have to understand how people will react to certain things. The sociological impact of what is done. But then there is a logic behind that too, so once again logic is the way. The main problem is that people are often misinformed and their logic is distorted through mistruths.

 

Then there's the cultural differences that show that people all over world think in different ways. Take genital mutilation for example. It is seen as barbaric in the western world (and indeed plenty of other places) but it is still practised in other places. Now it would be easy to say you are to ban these things because there is no humane logic behind it past control of women. Unfortunately, simply holding that fact doesn't change you chances of decreasing it's prevalence in some cultures. In some cultures, as much as it seems illogical to some, the answer is not to ban it outright but to aim for a long time plan aiming to eradicate it gradually. People generally don't take well to other cultures coming in and demanding changes be made to what for many is a sacred institution. There are girls right now somewhere being mutilated, but even though it doesn't sound logical, the correct thing to do for the long term would not be to take them away from their parents. It would be for a gradual (though as fast as realistically possible) move away from such practices through education. Otherwise the practice will live on. You will save one girl but the problem will persist. more children will be born and all you will have managed is to isolate yourself from gaining access to that culture. You would be rejected. And it would be understandable because to those people they see no harm in genital mutilation, but they do see harm in you taking their children away or raising their children for them.

 

I guess it comes down to it being that the logical way being something more than some people acknowledge. It still boils down to the logical way in the end, it just may not appear to be that.

 

You've lost me.

You've lost me.

 

Yeah, I tend to ramble.

I was just defending logic I guess.

Except in a bit of an illogical way - ie unintelligibly.

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/society/2013/05/creeping-closer-utopia