|
Post by teuton on Jan 24, 2006 15:21:47 GMT 2
Mc Donald's is popular all around the world, but differs from country to country. So, what do you think about Mc Donald's or Fast-Food in general?
|
|
|
Post by Humppaporo on Jan 24, 2006 15:47:57 GMT 2
I'm sorry, but this is a shitty topic imo. Isn't there something more sensible to discuss?
|
|
|
Post by teuton on Jan 24, 2006 17:37:09 GMT 2
Sorry but I am getting pissed right now...anyone is posting any shit on this forum, but it is me who is accused first....I do not see any fairness, just let this damn thread exist, if it does not bring success, it can be deleted anyway....
So, my question was:
In times of globalization, the named fast-food-restaurant is one of the best examples for success all around the world. What seems interested to me is, how the managed to attire masses of people and what their concept is. For learning about this, it would be cool if people from all around the world, like people from this board, could, idf they want, tell us something abut globalization, and, to make it easier to explain and understand and connect, you could just use the example of Mc Donald's.
So, please tell me ;D
*edit: I changed the topic to make it something more sensible to discuss....
|
|
|
Post by jarmo on Jan 24, 2006 18:24:10 GMT 2
I believe globalization isn't the right term... Because that means that everywhere around the world countries are involved. But actually almost only North-American, European and some developed asian countries are involved. So it's more a triad.
But I think this "globalization" only makes the rich countries more rich. And the poorer countries poorer. This, because the triad of richer parts exchange more and more goods to eachother. These "triad"goods become cheaper in the "western world", so these countries are not interested in goods from the less rich countries. These countries like South-America, Africa and large parts of Asia are excluded from this wealth.
I think, that if the rich countries involve the poorer countries in this, that they will make more profit out of it than when they keep trading together. So this is positve for the poorer and the richer countries.
|
|
|
Post by janneke on Jan 24, 2006 19:02:56 GMT 2
Nonetheless, McDonald's restaurants shoot out of the ground everywhere, it's only a matter of time before even the poor country's will have their McDonald's restaurant, I think it's a pity, the influences of the "junkfood culture" will obliterate the more traditional food and habits that makes different country's so interesting. Moreover, this globalization (of junkfood) will elevate the number of overweighted people even more, but that's already happening.
|
|
|
Post by teuton on Jan 24, 2006 19:30:24 GMT 2
Poor countries do already have them, I think, I do not know any country that has got no McDonalds!^^
|
|
|
Post by DaveTheRake on Jan 24, 2006 19:34:41 GMT 2
A good example of what globalization means can be heard on the picture "Good Will Hunting" when the character played by Matt Damon refuses a job he's been offered and he explains Robin Williams why he did that. A great movie, I think
|
|
|
Post by MaliceGarden on Jan 25, 2006 23:30:56 GMT 2
what pisses me off about those global food chains is that here, in Portugal we dont have a thing spanish ppl have, called "patatas bravas" (well, this its not easy to translate, i think, but maybe "spicy potatoes" does the trick). i really like these and i would have to get them at a spanish mcdonalds or some other restaurant chain.
regarding the topic, i agree with teuton(dont know why, your nick reminds of triton. a lizard type animal).
|
|
|
Post by DaveTheRake on Jan 26, 2006 9:46:22 GMT 2
Yeah, we should globalise the bravas from the bar "las bravas" in Madrid; and we also should globalise the "guijuelo" ham with a good Ribera Del Duero wine.
Now seriously, there's a problem of semantic with the term globalization; if we speak of globalization, we speak of something that goes around the world, and we disguuise it in the term globalization; in fact, for me at least, globalisation is a new way of giving name to the old "imperialis"; European potencies spread 150 years ago through territorial spreading; now this spreading comes thanks to the most universal of the troopers, comercialization.
|
|
|
Post by teuton on Jan 26, 2006 17:45:40 GMT 2
If you globalize and globalize, contires will not be countires anymore one day. English will be the most spoken language in the world, nationalities and patriotism will not have any value anymore. You shpuld set borders to globalization.
|
|
|
Post by DaveTheRake on Jan 26, 2006 18:37:30 GMT 2
But that's the globalization I'd like!!! This may sound much hippy but we are all together in this world, and borders are just polithical burdens that make us fight one with the others; we should pay no attention to things like that and be proud of being together in this world, and help us. Ok, I know it's naive, but I think that as a dream it would be a beautiful one. If we realise that we must go ahead to reach the same goal together Bin Ladens, Bushes, Terrorism, Dictatorships etc etc would have no reason to be. We've got an organisation called UN... well, I think that's a good frame for a world parliament. The fact that English language would be the common language would be a great thing, imagina going everywhere and know that you will be able to talk to everybody. That doesn't mean that you loose your own language; in Spain we've got 4 oficial languages, and everybody speaks Spanish. I don't think that globalisation taken in good terms would be bad for our own small cultural identities. I'm sure that in all of your countries things are different from one regions to other ones, and nothng bad happens.
Ok, I'll stop here; I know this s just a naive dream impossible to develope, but still it would be a great thing. Unfortunately it's mankind the one who must try to do it
|
|
|
Post by frostheim on Jan 26, 2006 23:10:13 GMT 2
I wouldn't like the thought of ie. the English language becoming the one to be spoken everywhere; all languages do reflect each culture and their ways of thinking and seeing the world, as well as they also determine the whole cultural society, it's history, roots, traditions and the whole existence so strongly, that adopting a "bigger" and/or a wider-used language from a completely foreign culture from outside as an official-one can easily lead to the smaller languages to be pushed to the background and in the worst case to make them finally disappear because of assimilation and acculturation, although it's of course self-evident that cultures and languages more or less close to each other do have effect on both directions all the time inevitably anyway. However, losing the language means losing the whole culture, and a one good example of the difficult situations alike are the Uralic (+ many others too) languages in the whole Russian region: All the minority languages are under a huge pressure by the Slavonic culture, politics and language, and the extinction of the Uralic languages and also cultures seems sadly to be somewhat just a matter of time. In a situation where one can't even learn one's own mother tongue but only the foreign-one in a school, or if one is forced to use a foreign language in everyday life both at work and outside of it just can't have good results when we talk about keeping alive the languages, traditions and the culture as a whole. The situation gets even worse when the old and more original sources of livelihood (ie. reindeer-herding, hunting, fishing etc.) are forced down and hindered by the foreign culture and it's industry; this has already happened as the Russians have come to ie. the Nenets and Khanty regions to pump oil from the soil and making it impossible for the indigenous people to get on and survive with their own old ways of life in their own lands. THIS instead of this.
|
|
|
Post by swordmaiden on Jan 28, 2006 14:21:33 GMT 2
If you globalize and globalize, contires will not be countires anymore one day. English will be the most spoken language in the world, nationalities and patriotism will not have any value anymore. You shpuld set borders to globalization. *smacks hand on forehead* joj...this sounds like the "new world order" But have no fear, this will never happen because people cannot thrive without an identity or purpose. mcdonalds food is terrible..blah i hate fast food.
|
|
|
Post by swordmaiden on Jan 28, 2006 14:25:32 GMT 2
what pisses me off about those global food chains is that here, in Portugal we dont have a thing spanish ppl have, called "patatas bravas" (well, this its not easy to translate, i think, but maybe "spicy potatoes" does the trick). i really like these and i would have to get them at a spanish mcdonalds or some other restaurant chain. regarding the topic, i agree with teuton(dont know why, your nick reminds of triton. a lizard type animal). mmm..patatas bravas...good tapas food. i have only had it in cafe bars in spain though.
|
|
|
Post by DaveTheRake on Jan 28, 2006 16:06:14 GMT 2
That's because we Spanish are hiding our expansion plans till the right time arrives. We are going to spread again through the world with the help of our paella and patatas bravas. then, when everybody falls on their knees and beg to sell them in industrial quantities, we will increase incredibly rich and then we'll send our teoops all around the wiorld just to be again the empire "where the sun never sets" as we was in the XVII C... hmmm, this plan seems quite similar to the USA one, though
|
|