Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/anthropology/1627401-response-2
https://studentshare.org/anthropology/1627401-response-2.
When generating a response to this article, one must realize the assumption that Americanization has increased the commercial industry in the country. In an argument by Outhwaite, Americanization defines the actual retail sector in the United States (41). The author further argues that Americanization is responsible for the growth of industries in the United States and worldwide that have experienced Americanization (Outhwaite 41). In support of the article, Americanization has now found its roots across the globe as nations like china experienced commercial battles for American industry. Additionally, it is an obvious assumption that major business entities with great histories originate in the United States. This is because Americanization quickly became an international vice after complete dominance of the American market. Outhwaite also argues that Americanization took a less significant time to dominate the Americas (78) fully.
In the article on nationalism, the author fails to identify the term's true definition. This is because they believe in more than just one definition from a historical point of view. Methodological Nationalism in America dates back to the historical approaches of nationalism. Outhwaite argues that one cannot define nationalism in the United States because the historical definition is significant in determining the term (102). However, the article disregards the argument and focuses on whether methodological nationalism united or divided the United States. Additionally, the author focuses on the ability of the modern American citizen and government to appreciate the historical approaches to nationalism (Outhwaite 102).
In responding to the article, one must recognize that the report does not provide a true definition of methodological nationalism. The article focuses on the works of many scholars who have referred to the vice in different forms of reports. Additionally, the paper still debates whether it should be appreciated or regarded as a dividing factor in the nation.
When comparing the two articles, there is a difference based on the fact that Americanization is a vice that has been advantageous to America for a long time. In contrast, methodological nationalism has no definite position on its advantages. Additionally, Americanization is easy to define and locate its place in modern and historical society. On the other hand, nationalism cannot be explained by considering the historical definition, as the intention of both the citizen and the government on nationalism has changed.