Review of "How not to do an American accent"

This blog post is a review about the BBC article linked to here. It seems that there is some demand in the world to be able to create and use an American accent. How interesting and flattering--though it should not be flattering. Somewhat ironically, the expert in the article helps people, such as Americans, form a British accent, not an American one. Reverse engineering?

Anyway, apparently, compared to Britons, Americans speak with wide mouths and smiles, with the tongue high in the mouth. Guessing that translates into Britons, compared to Americans, speaking with narrow and slack mouths, and the article suggests that Britons' standard tongue placement is on the aveolar ridge behind the teeth.

Many Americans would want to be able to use a British accent. The BBC should make an article for them.

While it's interesting that some people would want to pick up an American accent, it is not all that surprising, given the impact of American films, television, and the power the United States wields in the world. Still, from an American point of view, an American accent is just plain ol' normal, while the 'typical' British accent has a connotation of being cultured and sophisticated. For the Britons out there angry that the 'bad guys' in a lot of American movies have British accents, it is--at least partially--because Americans tend to associate British accents with acculturation. If you'll notice, oftentimes those bad guys are quite upper crust and part of high society.

You'll also notice that sophisticated 'good guys' also frequently have a British accent--or an attempt at one. Meanwhile, the 'ordinary' characters, usually including the the protagonist, tend to have American accents because: a) the film is American, and b) the American accent is taken to be the accent of the 'common people.'

Take Star Wars, for instance. The Imperial officials tend to have British accents, but so does Obi-Wan Kenobi, Threepio, Crix Madine, and Mon Mothma. Meanwhile, Han Solo and Luke Skywalker have American accents. Leia does a 180. In A New Hope, the accent is British. In the following film, the accent turns American. A similar thing occurs with Amidala. When stately, they have a British accent. When just ordinary folk, they have an American accent.

Figure this is just another manifestation of the mutual love fest many Americans and Britons have with each others' cultures.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Rule Americana: How American Culture Is Assimilating the World.

In light of tomorrow's anniversary of Independence Day, it seems fitting to write about how American culture, or Americana, has had an enormous impact on the world. Not by giving people something to entertain themselves or to merely view as a curiosity. As something which has changed their worldview, values, and standards, hopefully for the good of the world.

Toy Story exhibits American culture.

Firstly, the realm of entertainment. American music has swept across the planet, and rock, jazz, rap, and hip-hop can be heard in practically any country on Earth. American literature, although more subdued, also has a strong representation in the world's bookstores.

Arguably, however, it is the visual media of American television and movies which has had the greatest impact disseminating American values to peoples flung far and wide. For almost every movie that is crass, vulgar, crude, or just pathetically pathetic, there is a movie or television show which is a jewel of crystallized and concentrated Americana. And whether by design or accident, these shows and films are often targeted at the young.

Of course there is that junk load of low quality movies that appear in theaters around Christmas, but for the large part, American children's movies, are actually extraordinarily rich. Foremost among the companies responsible for this is Disney, which is still the foundation of the children's movie business. However, it is joined by others such as Dreamworks, Paramount, and Fox, too.

One of the most common features of many of these films and shows is formation of a family or community from a diverse spread of beings. This is extraordinarily common, and reflects the American view that a single, unified nation--a real race--can be formed out of people not bound by blood or ancestry, but by people with a common goal, although they might be otherwise quite diverse. Shrek has an ogre, an ogre-human hybrid that is the child of a human and a frog, and a talking donkey, with an extended gang including: a dragon, dragon-donkey babies, pigs, a wolf, a gingerbread cookie, a wooden puppet, and blind mice. Ice Age groups together a mammoth, a sloth, a saber-toothed tiger, and a human infant. Toy Story has a community of toys containing a cowboy, a spaceman, a slinky dog, an etch-a-sketch, and a potato head. Star Wars has a backwater peasant who can use the Force, a princess-senator-rebel (who happens to be the twin of the peasant), a drug smuggler, his ex-slave, former hero, Wookiee partner, an uptight etiquette droid, and a plucky and salty mechanic droid.

Along with lumping together these disparate parts which make the whole greater than the sum of their parts, the individuals in all of these films each bring to their 'nation' their own strengths and talents--or not. In Ice Age, Sid (the sloth) brings no discernible talent to the group, but is still part of the group and not ostracized. In Firefly, River Tam starts out as a mentally disabled invalid, yet the other members of the crew grow attached to her. So while individuals with a unique or special talent are an advantage to the nation, they aren't the only people worth being part of the nation.

Further enshrined in American film is the concept of "All for one and one for all," especially the "all for one" part--as opposed to China, where the emphasis is on the "one for all" portion. In the sequel to Toy Story, a rescue mission is sent out to retrieve Woody after he is stolen--while trying to rescue Wheezy. The crew of Firefly protects River from the authorities. In Star Wars, Leia, Lando, Chewbacca, Luke, and the droids set out to free Han from Jabba's Palace, where he is frozen in carbonite. Saving Private Ryan is an adult film which explores this concept.

However, it is not only American art which infuses the increasingly homogenized global civilization with American values. Also influencing the world is the United States' politics.

Take this current Presidential election contest, for instance. If Barack Obama wins, and his Presidency is deemed a success, the ramifications for the world would be huge--although unfortunately Obama has foolish views on abortion, Iraq, and free trade. Nations where one 'racial' group is in charge while others are lower on the social ladder would be faced with the fact that the most powerful--in terms of economy, military, and culture--nation on Earth had chosen a member of their 'lower caste' to lead them, and he was a success. Ordinary people in those countries would have to wonder whether or not the 'lower castes' in their own countries, whether they be ainu, Roma, aborigine, 'black', or Amerindian, etc. should be so casually dismissed as failures. People from those oppressed groups would be given hope that a member of their group could ascend the rungs of power in their countries.

A 'black' American President could have enormous repercussions worldwide.

And not only those 'racially' heterogeneous countries would be affected. Even homogeneous societies such as Korea would be impacted.

They would see a majority group that they view as being higher in the racial strata, 'whites', voluntarily trusting and choosing a member of a group they view as being lower in the racial strata, 'blacks', to represent them to the world. That would throw their racist preconceptions into flux. If 'white' people have confidence in a 'black' man as the leader of the free world, then should Asians, Middle Easterners, etc. look at 'blacks' less derogatorily?

But among the greatest of the cultural endowments the United States has already bestowed on the world is the one which is considered to have burst into flame--even if it wasn't the first spark--on the fourth day of July in 1776. The thirteen British colonies which on that day declared themselves to be independent states from Britain, were the first colonies in modern history to declare their independence, fight for their independence, and win their independence. The United States set the model for the independence of Latin America and the Caribbean, which freed those states from European rule. The United States continued to be looked up to by subjugated colonies as a source of hope in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, even as the United States partook in empire itself. Its representative political standards influenced the development of Western Europe--and were aspirations for Soviet-ruled Eastern Europe in the Cold War.

Long live American values.

On July 4, 1776, the people of the thirteen new states comprising the United States of America chose to free themselves from the rule of a British king and decide their own futures. The people of New Spain were Spanish subjects. The people of Brazil were Portugeuse subjects. The people of British North America (Canada) were British subjects.

The people of the United States, the first sovereign states in the Americas, were no longer British, nor were they subjects to an earthly king. They could not be Spanish subjects, Portuguese subjects, British subjects, French subjects, Dutch subjects, etc. They had severed their ties to Europe, and now they were tied only to the land of this continent. They were not European subjects any more.

They were American citizens. And they changed the world.

Rule Americana. Long live the United States of America.

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Don't Trust Wikipedia.

If you look up a topic on the Internet, odds are that you will get a link to Wikipedia in the results. Wikipedia, one of the most popular websites on the web, is an online encyclopedia founded on the premise that basically all and sundry can write and edit articles about topics of their choosing. It is a very idealistic premise, but that's not all. It just happens to be a very dangerous premise, too.

Bluntly put, far too many people on the Internet are too trusting in believing that Wikipedia entries are valid, unbiased, factual. Many are, but many are not. Especially on entries dealing with politics, race, ethnicity and culture, history, and religion, all Wikipedia articles should not be considered appropriate sources of information, and should not be used, at all.

For instance, many Wikipedia entries about Northeast Asians attempt to make their physical appearance similar to that of Europeans. According to Wikipedia, Northeast Asians are supposed to be light skinned, hairy(er), taller, and have narrow noses. These Asians are usually contrasted with Southeast Asians, who are--according to Wikipedia--darker skinned, less hairy, shorter, with wider noses. While it is the case that *on average,* your typical Northeast Asian would be lighter skinned than your ordinary Southeast Asian, the fact is that both Northeast and Southeast Asians run the gauntlet from light skinned to dark skinned, with lighter skin being more prevalent in the north, and darker skin being more prevalent in the south. And even still, the standard light skinned Northeast Asian is still darker skinned than the average northern European. The other features are yet more dubious. Northeast Asians might be hairier than Southeast Asians, but this is primarily exclusive to Mongolians and Japanese. The remainder--height and noses--are downright ludicrous. Northeast Asians are on average about the same height as Southeast Asians, even with a higher standard of living. As for noses, Northeast Asians do tend to have pointier nose tips, whereas Southeast Asians tend to have more bulbous nose tips. However, both Northeast and Southeast Asians have wide noses which splay out--from a Eurocentric standpoint. Notably not mentioned are East Asians' most prominent feature (in the West): their slanted eyes, which is more prevalent among Northeast Asians while Southeast Asians are more prone to have rounder eyes. Nor are wide cheekbones and flat(ter) faces referred to, although both Northeast and Southeast Asians (with the exceptions of some Southeast Asians near India, such as Burmese and Thai) have wide cheekbones and flat faces (moonfaces), again, from a Eurocentric viewpoint. Why should Northeast Asians want to look European anyway? Their features are every bit acceptable as Europeans', and so are Southeast Asians'. Northeast Asians on Wikipedia, in a wanna-be-white funk, make a pathetic attempt to boost their pride--at Southeast Asians' expense. By doing so, they are not only being inaccurate, but insulting, and this almost definitely misleads people who aren't very informed about East Asia (both Northeast and Southeast Asia).

In theory, biased editing would be counteracted by editors with opposing or more objective views. However, in practice, it is easy to see how this supposed safeguard falls short. Nations and ethnicities, religions, etc. with more people on the Internet would have a proportionally larger voice and influence on Wikipedia. Using the case above, there are far more Northeast Asians on the web than there are Southeast Asians--South Korea and Japan (two of the most racist Northeast Asian groups) are among the most Internet connected nations on the planet. Thus Northeast Asians are able to ride roughshod over Southeast Asians while Southeast Asians' ability to defend themselves is limited. And the greater global population is none the wiser.

Similarly, the United States is heavily represented and punches far above its weight (in terms of population) on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not accurate, and is used as a political, racist, religious, and biased-historical tool by various interest groups. And an excessive amount of Wikipedia's readers are too gullible to pick up on this.

At most, Wikipedia can be used for its reference links to external sources, although even these could be slanted, with one side being overly represented among the references. And even for more mundane topics, such as the composition of compounds, Wikipedia might be used *to become familiar with the topic.* Even there, you should verify what you read with more reliable sources.

Frankly put, Wikipedia is being used as a propagandistic force for evil.

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.