Idiom check with UK , Aussies and Kiwis.

[KimAwakened]

The idea that it's "only to be expected" that cultural flows should only be in one direction is pretty much the definition of cultural imperialism.

Really? Or is it actually the Occam's Razor argument? When you're analysing which way you'd expect a "cultural flow" to be going, the simpler idea is that it would be from the country with a couple of thousand years of incrementally-gathered culture to the country which has barely a few hundred years thereof, if any, and whose language and traditions are derived from its senior...

 

[Writer61]

When you're analysing which way you'd expect a "cultural flow" to be going, the simpler idea is that it would be from the country with a couple of thousand years of incrementally-gathered culture to the country which has barely a few hundred years thereof, if any, and whose language and traditions are derived from its senior...

Also, the UK has three times the population which must have an impact on the amount of content generated.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Really? Or is it actually the Occam's Razor argument? When you're analysing which way you'd expect a "cultural flow" to be going, the simpler idea is that it would be from the country with a couple of thousand years of incrementally-gathered culture to the country which has barely a few hundred years thereof, if any, and whose language and traditions are derived from its senior...

I beg your pardon.

Human settlement in Australia goes back more than fifty thousand years, and First Australian cultures (plural) still exist today despite British settlers' best efforts to eradicate them. When the First Fleet showed up, there were about 250 languages spoken on this continent. More than a hundred endure today. Yet most UK folk wouldn't be able to name a single one or speak a single word from them, and many of their descendants here can't do much better.

If it's length of history that matters to you, take a seat and see what you can learn from your elders over here. We have oral histories of events that happened 4700 years ago; how much history does the UK have going back that far?

(See the recent Jamie Oliver fiasco for another example of British ignorance of Australian cultures and languages.)

Even if we ignore all that history, and all the Irish convicts transported as labour for British settlements, and all the subsequent non-British migration (not all of it voluntary) that has shaped modern Australia, and pretend that Australia is purely and simply populated by the descendants of British migrants, your argument doesn't make much sense. When people migrated from the UK, they brought that "couple of thousand years" of British traditions and language with them. We've had Shakespeare and monarchy and the adversarial legal system and binge drinking since 1788; why would we need to be importing those things today?

The answer, of course, is that what's flowing now isn't all those TWO THOUSAND YEARS!!! of history; it's primarily stuff like Teletubbies and Fireman Sam and all that, which were created in the last few decades. I assure you the UK doesn't have a monopoly on the last few decades.

Also, the UK has three times the population which must have an impact on the amount of content generated.

By that logic, since the USA's population is about five times that of the UK, Kim should be fine with the USA having five times as much influence on the UK's culture as vice versa

 

[jaF0]

Same with 'Murica. The Italian didn't discover squat.

 

[Writer61]

By that logic, since the USA's population is about five times that of the UK, Kim should be fine with the USA having five times as much influence on the UK's culture as vice versa

Indeed. Kim might disagree but I think that US culture does have a significant effect on the UK. Not sure that it is in proportionate to population difference but there is an imbalance.

 

[Britva415]

Really? Or is it actually the Occam's Razor argument? When you're analysing which way you'd expect a "cultural flow" to be going, the simpler idea is that it would be from the country with a couple of thousand years of incrementally-gathered culture to the country which has barely a few hundred years thereof, if any, and whose language and traditions are derived from its senior...

If Occam's Razor is being used to justify the conclusion that flow can't possibly be two ways, then yeah, that's the point which was being made: That's cultural imperialism.

Occam's Razor isn't always right.

 

[KimAwakened]

Indeed. Kim might disagree but I think that US culture does have a significant effect on the UK. Not sure that it is in proportionate to population difference but there is an imbalance.

No, I very much agree... although one might query the use of "culture" in this context... and it was the very sad point I was trying to make.

And if it comes to "aboriginal arguments" I could highlight the fact that human occupation of Britain can be dated back almost a million years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Britain). But I won't do that because of course it would be both petty and irrelevant, right?

What I was pointing out was that America somehow has this largely undeserved image in the Anglosphere of being the source of all things desirable and "cool". And, amazing though you may find this, that is actually not a reference to Apache, Navajo or Sioux society...

 

[Bramblethorn]

No, I very much agree... although one might query the use of "culture" in this context... and it was the very sad point I was trying to make.

And if it comes to "aboriginal arguments" I could highlight the fact that human occupation of Britain can be dated back almost a million years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Britain). But I won't do that because of course it would be both petty and irrelevant, right?

Did you actually read the article you're quoting?

If you did, you'd be aware that while Britain has had several periods of human occupation and the earliest does indeed go back almost a million years, those groups didn't stay:

Britain was unoccupied by humans between 180,000 and 60,000 years ago, when Neanderthals returned. By 40,000 years ago they had become extinct and modern humans had reached Britain. But even their occupations were brief and intermittent due to a climate which swung between low temperatures with a tundra habitat and severe ice ages which made Britain uninhabitable for long periods. The last of these, the Younger Dryas, ended around 11,700 years ago, and since then Britain has been continuously occupied.

Unless you happen to be a miraculous survival from the Neanderthals unknown to science, or you're suggesting that some sort of...location-based asynchronous telepathy, I guess?...communicated the culture of the previous inhabitants to the later, then those earlier inhabitants are not relevant to present-day British culture, and the relevant human occupation of Britain is around 12,000 years old. As opposed to 50,000 years of continuous inhabitation for Australia.

In terms of recorded history, I believe the oldest known references to Britain date to about 500 BC. Meanwhile, the Luritja of Central Australia have histories of meteor strikes from 4700 years ago, and coastal peoples of Queensland still remember the sea level rises of 10,000-13,000 years ago (brought about by the same interglacial that made the current human settlement of Britain possible). All this despite over two hundred years of invasion, ethnic cleansing, and neglect.

The British equivalent would be if there were still recorded histories of the people who came from Doggerland to Britain, and of the period when rising seas cut off the British Isles from the mainland.

What I was pointing out was that America somehow has this largely undeserved image in the Anglosphere of being the source of all things desirable and "cool".

And what I was pointing out was that the UK isn't really in much position to complain about "cultural imperialism" given its own history and present (er y byddaf yn cydnabod bod gan yr Albanwyr a'r Cymry rai cwynion dilys am eu cymydog...)

And, amazing though you may find this, that is actually not a reference to Apache, Navajo or Sioux culture...

You are correct, the rest of the world doesn't hear a lot from Native American cultures since UK-descended colonists forcibly suppressed those cultures and imposed their own, UK-descended culture on those people.

That's what serious "cultural imperialism" looks like, and it's something the UK and its colonies have been doing for centuries. Many countries around the world still bear the scars from British policies of eradicating indigenous culture (and often the people along with it).

If the worst cultural imperialism you have to endure is becoming acquainted with a different usage of "knocked up" (without anybody threatening to beat you or take your children if you persist in using the UK version), then consider yourself extremely fortunate, and don't expect much sympathy from the rest of the English-speaking world.

 

[KimAwakened]

Ah right, thanks for alerting me to the fact that the OP was really asking about idiom in cultures other than those which use English.

I'm afraid my lamentable antennae weren't up to detecting that he really meant Arapaho, Welsh etc

 

[Bramblethorn]

Ah right, thanks for alerting me to the fact that the OP was really asking about idiom in cultures other than those which use English.

I'm afraid my lamentable antennae weren't up to detecting that he really meant Arapaho, Welsh etc

OP also wasn't asking for your feelings about American English, and yet here we are.

 

[Tomh1966]

Culture flowed boy ways.

Ky kids loved Kipper the dog.
Heck, I loved Kipper the dog.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Culture flowed boy ways.

Ky kids loved Kipper the dog.
Heck, I loved Kipper the dog.

I was more of a Monty Python/ Benny Hill fan...

 

[Bramblethorn]

I was more of a Monty Python/ Benny Hill fan...

Loved Python. I've just been listening to a German death metal version of "Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life".

Fawlty Towers repeated endlessly here, but then it was very very good.

 

[jaF0]

Fawlty Towers repeated endlessly here, but then it was very very good.

Que?

 

[jaF0]

Any a' y'all ever used 'ustacould'?


I ustacould do stuff without my back a'hurtin'.

 

[Writer61]

Any a' y'all ever used 'ustacould'?


I ustacould do stuff without my back a'hurtin'.

Don't think I have ever heard/read it before.

 

[KimAwakened]

OP also wasn't asking for your feelings about American English, and yet here we are.

Yes, here we are discussing the differing forces influencing idiom between the various major centres of English use... and not of course seeking to pounce on an innocently-used term (I never said that the "imperialism" concerned was anything other than unplanned and unintentional) and parade at length our own, fairly obvious personal prejudices regarding one specific country...

 

[Writer61]

I never said that the "imperialism" concerned was anything other than unplanned and unintentional

Indeed, I have been wondering who would be in charge of UK Cultural Imperialism. The British Council (an NGO) is the closest that I can think of in terms of remit. Perhaps working in cahoots with BBC Worldwide (the commercial arm that handles international sales) and the World Service (funded by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office) plus possibly the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport (which is UK focussed).

Perhaps influence would be a better word than imperialism.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Indeed, I have been wondering who would be in charge of UK Cultural Imperialism. The British Council (an NGO) is the closest that I can think of in terms of remit. Perhaps working in cahoots with BBC Worldwide (the commercial arm that handles international sales) and the World Service (funded by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office) plus possibly the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport (which is UK focussed).

Perhaps influence would be a better word than imperialism.

The British Council is a NDPB (non-departmental public body, aka quango, ie part of Government), not a NGO. It's about 85% self-funded from the teaching and exams it offers, but the rest of its income is mostly from the FCDO (Foreign Office) and other government grants.

'Soft power' is the phrase used within Government to describe influence. Covers our TV and theatrical/film/musical exports, sports players, literature, influence of our scientists and diplomats, the Royal Family (in particular how respected the Queen was - I'm told multiple planned wars were nipped in the bud when the young despot explaining his plans to annex a nearby region would be told 'Ah, yes. I remember your grandfather tried that. As I recall, it didn't go so well for him...'), the desirability of UK degrees and the UK as a tourist destination...

Australia hasn't done too badly over the years with getting TV shown in the UK - before Bluey becoming the top show for parents of under-25s there was Neighbours and Home and Away, Prisoner Cell Block H. High Country, recently. Compared to say France or Germany (both having similar populations to the UK), Australian media has way more influence just by being in English. Only in the last few years are people watching more subtitled shows in different languages, especially crime dramas. Still way less news reporting from any country that doesn't speak English - we hear all about Australian and NZ elections, and too much about the USA, compared to EU nations.

 

[Writer61]

The British Council is a NDPB (non-departmental public body, aka quango, ie part of Government), not a NGO.

Thanks for the correction on funding. Quangos are, by definition, Non-Governmental Organisations.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Thanks for the correction on funding. Quangos are, by definition, Non-Governmental Organisations.

Quasi non-governmental organisations; the "quasi" can be interpreted anywhere from "almost"/"effectively" to "apparently but not really". Generally quangos have some degree of independence, and operate outside the usual civil service/public service framework, but are still significantly influenced by government. Summarising them as simply NGOs is over-simplifying.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Quasi non-governmental organisations; the "quasi" can be interpreted anywhere from "almost"/"effectively" to "apparently but not really". Generally quangos have some degree of independence, and operate outside the usual civil service/public service framework, but are still significantly influenced by government. Summarising them as simply NGOs is over-simplifying.

In particular, they can only be set up or abolished by an Act of Parliament - unlike a Government Department which can be created or merged overnight, when a PM says so. The Public Bodies Act 2011, known as 'bonfire of the quangos', was to get rid of a few hundred NDPBs - most of which have been recreated in some form or other...

 

[Writer61]

Quasi non-governmental organisations; the "quasi" can be interpreted anywhere from "almost"/"effectively" to "apparently but not really". Generally quangos have some degree of independence, and operate outside the usual civil service/public service framework, but are still significantly influenced by government. Summarising them as simply NGOs is over-simplifying.

Over-simplifying in a jokey post. The end of the world is nigh ...

 

[Writer61]

In particular, they can only be set up or abolished by an Act of Parliament - unlike a Government Department which can be created or merged overnight, when a PM says so. The Public Bodies Act 2011, known as 'bonfire of the quangos', was to get rid of a few hundred NDPBs - most of which have been recreated in some form or other...

Yet they are still known as QuaNGOs.