Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One point that I don't believe has been mentioned is that local content regulations, whether in Canada, France or any other country, usually lead to people having *more* cultural choices, not *less*.
Because in their absence, in most cases American stuff would totally occupy the space and squeeze everything else out.
As an example, in Canada contrary to radio and TV there are no CanCon rules that apply to feature films. (Though the government does provide some money to Canadian film makers, there are no CanCon quotas for movie theatres, for example.)
Anyway, right now, in Canada's capital city of Ottawa, there is a grand total of ZERO Canadian films playing in the city's 15 or so first-run cinemas that all have multiple screens. This is not exceptional - it's the way things are almost every single week of the year.
Exactly. I am a consumer of Canadian literature and music. Movies, not at all. But that goes for all films other than the occasional documentary.
Hahaha, this is funny. Each time I read about these quota, I'm wondering "What else does France has to offer except for Edit Piaf?" And then I click on the link...and whom do I see? Edith Piaf.
Indeed, modern French culture is super weak. And despite their quota, at least in my opinion, it has not resulted into bringing more good French songs onto stage or radio.
The quota and the results of it are a confession, in my opinion that modern French culture is super, super weak because:
- it needs quota to limit English songs which shows that France has no relevant music scene
- despite its quota, the French music scene is still horrifying and always plays the same, old songs
The quota were meant to promote French culture, but in my opinion they have shown how little France has actually to offer and that if fails to amaze people around the globe.
In Canada, the quota are more successful.
Yes and No.
I disagree that the quota leads to more cultural choices, but I agree that quotas are necessary to counter US-american hegemony.
First, in France, the quota de facto leads to a situation were French content is prioritized over non-French content. The quota is only 35%, which means that it leaves 65% room for US-American content.
Without such quota, there would be room for some more Latin American, Asian or other-European content.
But because of this quota, because 35% must be in French, only 65% remain.
And the remaining 65% compete for US-American, Latin American and other-European content, etc. Since the US-American content is the strongest it beats the other contents from other world regions - which ultimately means that in France you have very much Anglo content and much French content, but very, very little content from other countries/cultures.
Without the quota, there would be less French content, but more Latin, other-European content - and also more US-american content. So, I do not think that the quota results in having greater cultural choices. It results in having greater supply of French content, but less supply of non-French and non-English content.
I suggest, for France, to make a quota and limit the amount of Anglo-saxon content to 50% maximum. For the remaining 50%, I would not impose any quota. I oppose the idea of having a minimum quota for French. That would result into having more Latin American, other-European, Asian, etc content - that would be really a greater cultural choice.
Right now, it is very bi-centric: USA and France-centered. The biggest loser of the current quota system is not the USA or UK, it is the other European and Latin American countries.
Second, as for Canada: what is the purpose of English, when 90% of the world's English content is restricted just because its origin is not Canadian?
France discriminates under linguistic aspects, Canada discriminiates under aspects of origin.
It's like a kid in a global city that wants to try out some cool activities, only to found out that 50% of the stuff is not accessible.
Third, as for Australia, a 55% domestic content rule... A nation of only 24 million inhabitants limits itself just for the sake of not becoming the "USA of the pacific".
My point is: The A-CA and AUS are already heavily US-americanized and part of the same cultural system as the US, their quotas reflect a wish to become different but do they have a distinct culture that justifies these quotas? Don't Canadian and Australian songs and movies follow the samep atterns as their US-American role models? So, you get a Canadian version of an US-Americanized idea.
The proof is in the pudding in terms of quotas and choices available to cultural consumers.
As I've already mentioned there are no quotas on what is shown on movie screens in Canada and as a result Hollywood takes up all of the space. The lack of quotas has not freed up space for great Korean or Brazilian films to find a niche in Canada. It just leads to more screens for the latest Marvel superhero blockbuster or a rom-com featuring Jennifer Anniston.
The proof is in the pudding in terms of quotas and choices available to cultural consumers.
As I've already mentioned there are no quotas on what is shown on movie screens in Canada and as a result Hollywood takes up all of the space. The lack of quotas has not freed up space for great Korean or Brazilian films to find a niche in Canada. It just leads to more screens for the latest Marvel superhero blockbuster or a rom-com featuring Jennifer Anniston.
That's why I suggested to limit the amount of US-American content to 50%, while at the same time NOT imposing a minimum quota on Canadian content, so that Canada will be freed from the US+Canada-bicentralism. That would free up room for Korean and Brazilian films.
The rest of the world, besides the USA, has still over six milliards & 900 millions of inhabitants. Reserving 50% space for about 6,9 milliards of people is in my opinion OKAY, but reserving 50% space for only Canada and its mere 36 million inhabitants, that is nationalistic and certainly does not qualify Canada as world-open globalized nation.
About Chrystia Freeland - at dinner on Sunday a couple of people suggested she be the next PM. Around here, people are amazed and impressed at her cool, calm collected dignity in the face of anything but. She rocks!
All my friends who are into politics...and some are IN politics agree. She is well respected, well spoken, and not only rocks, she is a rock!
I think Freeland certainly has the chops to be PM if she wants to do it. Her and her whole ancestral family's history is damned impressive. It reads like a classic political success novel and Chrystia apparently has achieved more worldly recognition and been more ambitious and successful than all of her ambitious and motivated forebears rolled into one:
All my friends who are into politics...and some are IN politics agree. She is well respected, well spoken, and not only rocks, she is a rock!
Cynthia wrote the book "Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the fall of everyone else", I have not read it, but one person remarked on Amazon that Cynthia is defending the ultra-rich, positive towards the ultra-rich and not critical at all:
"Once you read far enough into "Plutocrats" it becomes obvious that Chrystia Freeland equates wealth with virtue. One after the other, the lifestyles of various Plutocrats are described in glowing terms. Every one of them seems to have risen to wealth and power through merit alone, with no help from good fortune, on the way. According to Freeland, superior education and unrivaled intellect are what separates the .01% from everyone else. In Freeland's world, what benefits the plutocrats is invariably the best thing for everyone else, in the end.
In this book, critical discussion is almost nonexistent. Instead unchecked adulation prevails. There is a chapter on plutocratic charitable giving in which various, sometimes dissonant opinions of different plutocrats are all presented as equally valid. It turns out most of the charitable giving is just a tiny percentage of income.
There is zero discussion of plutocratic manipulation and control of government for profit. Outsourcing is mentioned but with only a passing acknowledgment of the damage it has done developed countries.... Or the damage virtual slave labor and starvation wages have done in the countries providing cheap labor for the plutocrats additional enrichment. Nothing is said about plutocratic tax avoidance by hoarding wealth in Switzerland and Caribbean islands."
If you want Cynthia as the next PM, you should be reminded that she will do nothing to stop the rich from getting even richer, instead she will help them and increase the gap between low-income and ultra-high income Canadians. She would be a very horrifying president! Like Trudeau.
Her name is not Cynthia and Trudeau is not a president. As a supposed Canadian living in Canada can you not even get that right? And the book review remarks that you have quoted from some anonymous person on Amazon have no credibility.
And the book review remarks that you have quoted from some anonymous person on Amazon have no credibility.
Miss Freeland is friends with ultra-rich people; she herself received elite education and is member of the Liberal party which is supporting low taxes for the rich & catering to the interests of Canada's elite = allowing some large companys to control and influence Canadian politics. Everything hints that these reviews are credible:
There are multiple reviews from different persons that express the same opinion:
"In the chapter "Culture of the Plutocrats," Freeland shows odd sympathy for the plutocrats. Once more she defends the plutocrats. When she says that they "genuinely are convinced that the policies that happen to serve their own interests....are also right for everyone else" (273), she is engaged in special pleading."
"In spite of the implications in the longer title, Ms. Freeland seems a little too in awe, if not enamored of the lifestyles of the very, very rich."
"As noted earlier, she's on very friendly terms with a broad spectrum of the super-wealthy, and she seems to have a second career serving as a moderator for panel discussions at elite conferences -- one might almost describe her, perhaps not very kindly, as a sort of court functionary in the plutocrat kingdom. She bounces back and forth between admiration/adulation of the super-rich."
QuebecOpec... now you're going to have people thinking you're a Russian bot or something!
Da! I thought everyone knew he was a Russian!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
