Americanization Impact Less in the World With the development of economic and worldwide communication, globalization becomes a familiar word for people today. Some people address that globalization is Americanization because of forced influence from the United States. Whereas, a history professor, Richard Pells argues that “What we have in the 21st century is not a hegemonic American culture but multiple forms of art and entertainment-voices, images and ideas that can spring up anywhere and be disseminated all over the planet”(248). Pells believes cultures influence mutually instead of being impacted and dominated by Americanization. Also, culture can spread to the world through art, entertainment, and any other forms rather than only accept Americanization. Even though Americanization has significant effect in the world undeniably, the effect reduces recently. Pells also claims that “There is a sense overseas today that America’s culture exports are not as important, or as alluring, as they once today such as the cultural action is elsewhere- not so much in Manhattan or San Francisco but in Berlin and Mumbai.”(248). Americanization has less impact for other countries. Chinese audiences no longer go to theater to watch Hollywood movies as frequently as before. Also, individuals do not love American food blindly since local restaurants are rising up to compete with American food. In addition, Americanization is not only losing impact overseas, it is also invaded by foreign culture such as language. Foreign languages thrive with more and more people immigrant into America, and new immigrants bring their own culture to embed Americanization. Therefore, Americanization impacts less in the world and also invaded by other culture, which reflect in decreasing market’s share in other countries’ movies rising, local foods’ equal competition, and other languages’ invasion. Hollywood movies are not have the same effect in oversea market because local movies are rising. More and more audiences are attracted by local movies because citizens can engage in local movies rather than Hollywood movies. Pells describes that “Since 2000, moreover, American movies have steadily lost market share in Europe and Asia” (249). Other countries’ movie industry has grown up to beat Hollywood, which leads Hollywood lose more market occupation than before 2000. Other countries not only import Hollywood movies, but also study advanced technologies from Hollywood to improve local movies so that decentralize audiences who like to watch Hollywood movies. American movies lose its leading position in the world and local movies are rising up and able to beat Hollywood movies in local market. For example, “In the first quarter of 2012, ticket sales for American movies in China — including films as prominent as ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ and ‘Skyfall’ — fell 65 percent, to about $200 million, while sales for Chinese-language films rose 128 percent, to well over $500 million, according to the online publication Chinafilmbiz.com”(1). The example proves Pells’s idea, which defines American movies have less impacts in Asia, especially in China. Hollywood movies lose power in overseas market; Hollywood cannot dominate the movie market around the world because local movies market is rising to beat Hollywood movies. In other words, local movies have ability to compete with Hollywood movies because local producers have the same skills with Hollywood. The phenomenon of Hollywood’s domination is no longer appearing in the world, which means American superpower has less impact in China by movies.
Not only American movies lose their power in the world, American foods also has more equivalent competitors in overseas market. Before two decades, American food is popularly spreads the world, and individuals prefer American food rather than local food in every corner in the world. However, the situation changed. Pells presents that “Crowds, especially of young people, still flock to McDonald’s-whether in Beijing, Moscow or Paris. But every country has always had its own version of equally popular fast food” (249). American food is no longer dominating other countries’ restaurant while local restaurants rise sharply to compete with American food. Pells demonstrates that even though people still go to Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald’s, they also go to local food, which means American food is not the only favorite food for other countries’ citizens. Local food has equal ability as American food to attract customers. For instance, American food cannot instead of sushi in Japan. Sushi has equivalent or more attractive ability to attract customers not only in Japan, also in America. Sushi is representative of Japanese culture, and it will not disappear by American foods’ invasion, which like Americanization will not instead of Japanese culture. Moreover, local food is unique and familiar for local people. People prefer to American food is a temporary phenomenon, and they will back to local food because local foods have the taste of home. Also, people like American food only because it is new in oversea market, and people like to follow Americanization because America is the top one in the world. However, with other countries grow up, America is not the only one top in the world. Local food rises up by countries rising up, and more countries’ food import, which hurt the position of American food. Therefore, Americanization has less impact in food because local food is unique and more different countries’ food import to compete with American food. The influence of Americanization is not only less overseas, American language is also invaded by foreign language in its land. America is an immigrant country, which has diversity population from different countries. More and more new immigrants move into America, foreign languages are brought in to the United States. Pico Iyer convinces that “Los Angeles famously teaches 82 different languages in its school” (194). Iyer explains Los Angeles has diversity language in school, which implies that Los Angeles is a mixed language city because diversity population. Individuals bring new language and culture into America; students can be bilingual and study other countries culture in school. Actually, the United State looks like a small world, which combines with diverse population and language. Specifically, “Based on San Gabriel Valley research, Chinese is over English becoming the most using language for residents in Monterey Park, Alhambra, and San Gabriel”(Lu). Chinese is successfully over English in Los Angeles, which proves foreign language invades America. More and more Chinese live in America, which make Chinese residents have no need to study English because Chinese may be a second language in the United States. Nonetheless, some individuals still support Americanization dominates the world. A senior lecturer, Brendon O’Connor debates that “It dominates our television, radio stations, movie theaters, fashion and our imagination” (160). O’Connor believes Americanization overrun the world; it dominates technologies, entertainment, and commercial products which leads other countries follow American step. Also, O’Connor refers Americanization spreads to the world through its developed media communication in order to embed Americanization in local culture. Furthermore, Rice-Oxley supports O’Connor’s argument with “Local industries are truly at risk of extinction because of U.S. oligopolies, such as Hollywood”(164). Rice-Oxley believes Americanization attacks local culture includes local movies, economics, and industries, which cause local culture will instead of Americanization if local government does not support locals. However, Dan Roberts responds, “The world’s love affair with America isn’t exactly over, but it has stopped being a blind and unquestioning kind of love”(172). Roberts illustrates people less prefer America than former; even they do not refuse Americanization, they stop to follow Americanization without thinking. In addition, Joseph S. Nye Jr. explains “Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, globalization is neither homogenizing nor Americanizing the cultures of the world.” (208) Globalization is not equal to Americanization, which means Americanization cannot hurt local culture because local culture is unique and could affect Americanization. Even though the world becomes globalization, local culture still stand for itself and no other culture can be instead. In summary, Americanization has less effect in the world because local culture rises up and beat to Americanization, which cause American movies lose occupation and food market share in the world. Foreign culture also has ability to invade American culture in the United States. In other words, globalization is culture mixed or affecting mutually rather than Americanization. Even though O’Connor and Rice-Oxley believe Americanization is still dominating the world and hurt local culture, Nye Jr. and Robert contradict that Americanization lose its power in the world, and local culture will not be disappear with Americanization’s invasion. Therefore, with the improvement of technologies, frequent mutual communication, and speedy Internet, globalization will be the most powerful word instead of Americanization.

Works Cited

Cieply, Michael. “U.S. Box office heroes proving mortal in China.” New York Times. 22 Apr. 2013: A.1.Print.
Iyer, Pico. “The Global Village Finally Arrives.” The New World Reader: Thinking and Writing about the Global Community. 3rd Ed. Gilbert H Muller. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. 193-196. Print.
Lu, Chunyan. "Chinese is over English in three counties in LA." China News. N.p., 15 Sep. 2007. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.
Nye JR., Joseph S. “Fear Not Globalization.” The New World Reader: Thinking and Writing about the Global Community. 3rd Ed. Gilbert H Muller. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. 208-210. Print.
O’Conner, Brendon. “Bored with USA?” International Views: American and the Rest of the World. ED. Keith Gummery. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006. 160-162. Print.
Pells, Richard. “Does the World Still Care About American Culture?” The New World Reader: Thinking and Writing about the Global Community. 3rd Ed. Gilbert H Muller. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. 246-250. Print.
Rice-Oxley, Mark. “In 2,000 Years, Will the World Remember Disney or Plato?” International Views: American and the Rest of the World. ED. Keith Gummery. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006. 163-166. Print.
Roberts, Dan. “Is the World Falling Out of Love with U.S. Brands?” International Views: American and the Rest of the World. ED. Keith Gummery. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006. 167-172. Print.