|
You get cultural areas (and even linguistic areas) because of mutual borrowing and adaptation. Like 'race', 'cultures' are almost invariably impure.
A lot of US culture continues British culture, but with changes. Some changes were practices and attitudes adapted more or less to fit in with other practices. Some are still being adapted. Waves of immigration offer cultural practices; whether or not they get accepted is up to people. Most of the changes are plausibly different from what happened in their 'home' countries or would have happened in other cultures, and produce a result that's unique or nearly so.
But this is true of most cultures, at least most of the ones in Asia, Europe, Africa, and South/Central America. You have to get to isolated groups before you get practices 'developed in isolation', as that only those cultures are worthwhile. So much for French and Italian, Mexican or Canadian, Thai or even Divehi.
I ran into people in Czech summer school that assumed there was no US culture. The school grouped us by linguistic affiliation--Germanic speakers tend to have similar problems with Czech, for example, so it made sense. But after three weeks of being immersed in Czech culture (with limited Czech skills), it made social sense to us. Most Germans hung out with Germans, South Slavs hung out with South Slavs, British hung out with British, and Americans hung out with Americans. Even the Americans that thought there was no American culture (and were hankering to be exposed to an 'authentic' culture) did this, regardless of religion or ideology. In some cases, British and Germans or Americans and French had religion or ideology in common, it didn't matter. They said they were tired of being misunderstood, of having to explain cultural referents and attitudes; the Germans and French claimed there was no US culture, but that all Americans were alike, at least enough to be hard to integrate into their groups. Both sides understood that for all the differences, we had a common culture, one not shared even by the British attending school there.
Perhaps if there had been 100 Americans there instead of 15-20 of us, we'd have broken down into subcultures: NE, Californian, Pac. NW, South. But there weren't enough for that. Similarly, if there were only 2-3 of US, and a small number of British and Australians, we'd have emphasized what we had in common.
|