<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Making The World Safe for Hollywood</title>
	<atom:link href="http://arlenegoldbard.com/2005/10/21/making-the-world-safe-for-hollywood/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://arlenegoldbard.com/2005/10/21/making-the-world-safe-for-hollywood/</link>
	<description>Purpose &#38; pleasure. Aligned.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:23:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arlene Goldbard &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Cultural Complexity</title>
		<link>http://arlenegoldbard.com/2005/10/21/making-the-world-safe-for-hollywood/#comment-138</link>
		<dc:creator>Arlene Goldbard &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Cultural Complexity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:36:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://new.arlenegoldbard.com/?p=120#comment-138</guid>
		<description>[...] But in his Times essay, Appiah elaborates an entire cultural policy based on nothing more than the individual&#8217;s right to make his own path by walking through the cultures of the world. On October 21, 2005, I wrote about UNESCO&#8217;s &#8220;Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions,&#8221; adopted the previous day by member states with only two no votes, one of which came from the United States. Appiah sets up a straw man to stand in for those who endorse the Convention. He calls them purists and compares their relationship to cultures under pressure from globalization to the anxious &#8220;assistant on the film set who&#8217;s supposed to check that the extras in a sword-and-sandals movie aren&#8217;t wearing wristwatches.&#8221; He says (without a shred of evidence) that those concerned to preserve cultures want to force people to &#8220;maintain their &#8216;authentic&#8217; ways,&#8221; a goal I have never heard anyone espouse (and I am moderately well-informed on this subject). And he dismisses those who feel their own cultures are threatened by globalization as merely expressing discomfort with change: &#8220;[T]he world, their world, is changing, and some of them don&#8217;t like it.&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] But in his Times essay, Appiah elaborates an entire cultural policy based on nothing more than the individual&#8217;s right to make his own path by walking through the cultures of the world. On October 21, 2005, I wrote about UNESCO&#8217;s &#8220;Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions,&#8221; adopted the previous day by member states with only two no votes, one of which came from the United States. Appiah sets up a straw man to stand in for those who endorse the Convention. He calls them purists and compares their relationship to cultures under pressure from globalization to the anxious &#8220;assistant on the film set who&#8217;s supposed to check that the extras in a sword-and-sandals movie aren&#8217;t wearing wristwatches.&#8221; He says (without a shred of evidence) that those concerned to preserve cultures want to force people to &#8220;maintain their &#8216;authentic&#8217; ways,&#8221; a goal I have never heard anyone espouse (and I am moderately well-informed on this subject). And he dismisses those who feel their own cultures are threatened by globalization as merely expressing discomfort with change: &#8220;[T]he world, their world, is changing, and some of them don&#8217;t like it.&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

