Culture vs Survival

[messy]

This is my 1000 post, and since forums are all about debate and discussion I thought it best to have my 1000 that hopefully promotes debate or discussion. Now the attention grabbings out the way onto the scenario.

Let's take the war in Iraq as an example. Just say hypothetically America realised that to control the country and let democracy reign supreme they'd have to send in many more troops. This would lead to much more permanent garrisons, now inevitable some business' will move in so the soldiers there have home comforts. Now if America achieves its goal in Iraq and a successful democratic leadership is installed, insurgency are merely memories the aformentioned business will have a whole new market to "exploit". So, considering the power some multinationals have and the speed at which buildings can be made, in a decade or so (the time isn't really all to vital) the landscape of Iraq is dramatically changed. MacDonalds, Walmart and other similar stores litter the high-street, American football stadiums are everywhere. In short Iraq becomes the unofficial 51st state.

Now this is all hypothetical and I know the above example is a bit extreme and unlikely but I ask you, good people of the escapist;

Is it worth a country losing it's culture and heritage in such an abrupt fashion to ensure it's people safety? Or is it the cultural identity the thing we are willing so save, and people should be allowed there culture's to develop naturally with as much or as little foreign involvement as they wish even at the cost of their own safety

 

[AboveUp]

Actually, I don't think putting in more troops and building more American chains in that country is going to make it any safer.
It would get too much attention from a lot of the anti-western extremists for it to make it a good safe place to live.

Besides, if you want to see what becoming too much like America too fast while losing balance with tradition and culture... Just look at most Asian countries right now. Most notably, Japan.

 

[Simalacrum]

A great big congractulations on your 1000th post, sir!

In response to your question, let me point to Japan. Now, being half Japanese I have a slightly better understanding of its culture and ways, and how it has changed with te intervention of Western civilisation.

Yes, there are Macdonalds and Starbuck's around every corner in any Japanese city now, and yes, there is a lot of discussion in Japan itself whether the Western influence is badly affecting their children. The thing is though, I very much believe that Japan has been able to keep its culture and heritage, while still embracing the economic and technological comforts of the Western world. Infact, Japan has a long history of being very flexible and adapting incredibly well to outside influences - in essence, it takes these new cultures and objects and 'Japanophise''s them, making it unique and different to what it originally was.

Therefore, I believe its very possible for any given country to take in all such American whatnots, and yet still remain very rooted in its culture.

 

[shootthebandit]

good topic,

i think that this would never happen, the population of iraq is deeply muslim. i doubt they would encourage this sort of thing. i believe (correct me if im wrong) alot of the muslim population is vegitarian so i doubt that mcdonalds or any other fastfood outlet would be succesfull. also considering how militant the population of iraq is at the moment, there would definatly be alot of opposition to building such outlets, the builders would get attacked an eventually be forced to stop building.

although this has already happened in suadi and dubai due to the western influence in these countries they know have the largest supercar ownership and the worlds first 7star hotel

 

[Numb1lp]

First off, congrats on 1000. Now, I think South Korea is a good example, because it is a more Western culture, yet the people are still happy. At least, they're a lot happier than the NK Communist society. That is another reason democracy is better than communism.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Yes because if it's culture is based around hurting people then that part of the culture should be removed

Oh and congrats on the 1000th post man

Enjoy the achievement, because the next one is 5000 posts

 

[Sonicron]

Well, the U.S. have been trying to ensure safety over there for quite a while now and they don't seem to be much closer to achieving that goal - and I reckon this might be due to people not liking foreigners trying to transform their country into something relatively or completely alien to them. It's one of those tiresome old sayings that "change is good" (if you're a hobo, at any rate. j/k)... and while that may be true, people aren't usually good with change because we all have the mentality of a herd, something that makes introducing a dynamic current of significant change EXTREMELY difficult. In the particular case of Iraq, I doubt it's going to work at all, seeing how people keep reacting badly to America's well-meant influences (even after Saddam was disposed of).
So I suppose what I'm saying is that suppressing a culture is inherently incompatible with ensuring its people's safety because trying to do so will most likely make them react violently.

-EDIT- Almost forgot, congratulations on your 1000th post! ^^

 

[Hikikomori Ookami]

In spite of the current economic collapse in the US, I believe the best way to encourage the growth of a culture is economically. However, this requires willing participation by the host nation. The situation in Iraq is difficult, with some people hopeful that their standard of living improving through the intervention of others while others call this intervention interference and will do everything in their power to prevent it. In this case, a more subtle approach may be necessary.

So in answer to your question, I believe natural development to be better with the support that the developing country is willing to accept.