Globalization, and why it's a crock of shit. (775 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -1.72 on 17 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <b.at.myself.off> (View user info) at 2003-12-20 23:08:36 EST
It seems, that the general assumption among people living in western society, is that eventually, the world is
going to be governed by a single ruling body, thus eliminating the need for boarders and all of the problems
associated with them.
It is my opinion, that this is not only a poor assumption, because the eastern nations tend not to share this
vision, but it would be a great loss to the culture of all the individual nations, who would be forced to
conform to a new 'world culture'.
In the eastern countries, particularly the predominantly muslim nations, there is widely held view that the
west is the enemy. The main objective of terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden is to stir up conflict between the
east and west in order to wage a full scale holy war aginst, who they perceive, as their adversary. As stupid
as that may sound, considering the absolute raping the east would get in any such conflict, these religious
fundementalists believe that their god will bring the victory. Even outside of the Muslim nations, there is
still deep rooted hatred of the western countries. Many Russians still believe that the capitalists are the
enemy. China, North Korea and Vietnam still openly practice socialist principals. North Korea went so far as
to threaten the US. The nationalism that exists in european nations is far too strong to simply remove their
country's boarders in favor of a world government. For hundreds of years, the people who have lived in europe,
asia and africa have fought and died for the placments of these lines on a map. I don't expect the people of
America or other 'new world' countries to understand, they seldom find themselves fighting for their father
land on home soil. To quote Aristophanes "This is what extremely grieves us, that a man who never fought
Should contrive our fees to pilfer, on who for his native land Never to this day had oar, or lance, or blister
in his hand." The institution of a global language would also be an unacceptable denouement to many countries.
English has already become standard learning throughout much of europe and asia, but to actually globalize
the language would be to end the life of many languages which help to define the culture of the nations in which
they are spoken.
Since the end of World War two, the major empires of the world have been, to large extent, dismantled. The
British Empire, which at one stage boasted "The sun never sets on the British empire" is now merely a
commonwealth of nations with loose associations to one another. The small number of colonies held in africa
by the other european powers have for the most part been returned to native governments, and the spheres of
influence that doted asia have been removed. The explanation for this end to imperialism can be attributed to
a number of factors such as the ideals of self determination, and pressure placed on the imperial governments
by native rebels. But from the point of view of the empires mother countries, the primary motivator was a shift
in the focus of attention to the mounting frictions between the communist and capitalist powers. The USSR was
forming itself out of the broken pieces of eastern europe and the USA was establishing western europe as a
powerful, wealthy ally. In effect, the USA was putting spheres of influence into western europe, thus making a
kind of capitalist empire. The NATO, CENTO and SEATO organisations set up around the Soviet bloc were designed
to halt the spread of communism and came into effect during the Korean war, the Russian invasion of Afganistan and
the Vietnam war. The most interesting point about the USA's prevention of the spread of communism, is that the
marxist ideologies are internationalistic. The communists believed in a world brotherhood of urban proletariate
who's common experiences of oppression faced at the hand of the bourgeois would surpass their nationalistic
feelings. This idea fell apart early on in the revolution in Russia, when Stalin began to call on the spirt of
Mother Russia to defend the homeland from the Germans. The two empires that had been setup around the world
looked as though they would bring about globalization. It seemed, at the time, as though the winner
of the ideaology war would take the world as it's prize. The fall of the Berlin wall came and went. More issues
arose, and the people of the world remain seperated by boarders.
The road to establishing a world wide governing body is riddled with pot-holes and frequented by elderly drivers.
If a nation was to attempt to set in motion a move to establish a single world administration, the practicality
of such a move would be percieved as that nation trying to annex the world. The establishment of such an
organisation would require either the agreement of all nations simultaneously, or a slow assimilation of nations
into the world government one by one. Since the former would require a miracle (I really don't see every world
leader signing over their power to an untested system), the latter would be the only practical way of uniting
government. This slower proccess would be easily countered by the oppositon to such a move. Anti-communist
propaganda films of the red menace enslaving the globe come to mind. The other option, ofcourse, is a terrible,
bloody destructive war, that would force the world into a single government. Many men and organizations have tried
to accomplish this, and so far none have succeeded. There is a fine line between the noble cause of a peacful,
world state, and the ultimate ambition of any evil megalomaniac. Many issues that would go against
any sort of world unification would be the petty, though, symbolic issues of the placment of the capital. The
USA, being the most powerful nation at this time, would no doubt make a bid for the capital to made one of their
cities. But, naturally, most other nations would not agree. The world currency would also be an issue that could
make or break any internationalistic agreements.
The concept of internationalism from the perspective of many third world citizens, is that it is a tool for the
use of the Americans who want only to exploit technologically primitive nations with their empty promises of wealth
and progress through democracy. Western countries that have been aided by the Americans tend to take on many
aspects of american culture through their absorbtion of american film, television and literature. This is what leads
many americans to make the mistake of seeing western culture, when they're looking at their own culture. The spread
of a world government through what is currently the third world, would undoubtably alter the culture of the peoples
who already live there to conform with american culture. As the people stop spending all of their time working on
the farm, and come inside to watch some american television, they will begin to change their culture into the same
culture seen all over the west. The culture itself is not evil. It is the spead of that culture, and thus the
elimination of other cultures, that is evil. With the begining of the information age we have began to see many more
changes in the nations wealthy enough to afford the luxuries of computers. It is since the advent of the information
age that english became compulsary learning in many european schools. This has had a massive effect on the culture
that exists now in europe. The people now consume much more american literature, television shows and movies. The use of
computers as a form of news and media has meant that many europeans need to know english before they can understand
the biggest and most important sites, which are almost always in english (like übersite). You only have to look at
the latest music charts from Paris to see that american pop culture has found it's way into some of the oldest
cultures in the world.
In theory, the idea of a single governing body to preside over the whole world seems like a good idea, that would help
to end many of the world's major security problems. However the reality of it is that in order for the cultures of the
peoples of the world to be preserved, countries must remain as seperate bodies, because as Frank Lloyd Wright so
perfectly put it "Lack of culture means what it has always meant: ignoble civilization and therefore imminent downfall."
User Reviews
Submitted by mackdubya <Cruise2k5.at.aol.com> at 2004-04-14 22:12:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I didn't find anything wrong with format. Maybe some people are too picky. I read it, and everything was very worthy of a read. The picture was a little lame, but it does tie in, I suppose.
Submitted by kgbpasha (user info) at 2003-12-22 03:45:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
i agree, format sucks...i wonder if it was good?
Submitted by tshia (user info) at 2003-12-22 03:39:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
oh yes i think my article on communism relates to this, I have linked it here
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1069207209668220082
Submitted by tshia (user info) at 2003-12-22 03:37:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I tried to read this but the crappy formating in addition to the poorly thought out arguments stopped me. I read until the post started to suck, and then I finished the first paragraph (or what I assumed was a paragragph). I will have to agree with Indoninja who said "But is this so bad, not all cultures are good, some in fact suck. A lot of people have shitty customs, shitty laws, shitty music and shitty foo". I agree other cultures suck. I am saddened to see that they still exist, globalization needs to step it up a notch. The process of globalization would not make all cultures identical it would merely eliminate the boundaries between cultures, and globilization has nothing to do with some world wide government.
Consider the Eskimos for example who regularly practice infanticide. Babies that are not healthy enough or inconvient are simply murdered. When a family member grows too old other Eskimos abandon him to die in the cold. This is quite acceptable according to Eskimo culture, and who is to say that they are wrong? ME, Eskimos suck and the sooner we have a McDonald's up there and destroy their evil way way of life the better off the world will be.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2003-12-22 02:55:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You raise a good question, but I think you go off in the wrong direction from there. Read Thomas Freidman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree".
Submitted by Choppa (user info) at 2003-12-21 07:30:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
its hard to maintain your culture when you're all dead.
Submitted by Persecuted (user info) at 2003-12-21 00:15:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
'One of the biggest events in globalization was when Columbus discovered America. Is this bad?'
Just look at what happened to the culture of the natives.
Submitted by LucidCognition (user info) at 2003-12-21 00:03:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I almost want to debate this, but I realize that it will be about the same as banging my head against the wall - I'll have hurt my head and kill many brain cells.
Submitted by Persecuted (user info) at 2003-12-20 23:54:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
'You are too subpar for this.
Cut and paste. '
-God, Tom. I always stood up for you when people said that übersite and teenagers don't mix, maybe I was wrong. I actually decided to go all out on a good post, this not a cut'n'paste job. I have already explained that.
Submitted by Persecuted (user info) at 2003-12-20 23:52:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
'Is this some kind of crime - to believe something that you don't. This isn't something wrong ITS JUST DIFFERENT.'
The point of my post is that they are different. I pointed out the ideology that exists in those nations to highlight the fact that they are not interested in the west's globalization.
And as for you saying that I don't understand what globalization means, you obviously don't. Globalization comes in many forms, media and corporate gloabalization is just some of the many kinds. Globalization of culture and government is what I am talking about in my post.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2003-12-20 23:49:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You are too subpar for this.
Cut and paste.
-Tom
Submitted by LucidCognition (user info) at 2003-12-20 23:46:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"China, North Korea and Vietnam still openly practice socialist principals"
Is this some kind of crime - to believe something that you don't. This isn't something wrong ITS JUST DIFFERENT.
Are you stupid or just simple, globalization is not something that anyone is trying to accomplish. It's the effect of new media like the television and the internet. People across the world learning English is a perfect example of gloablization. No "westerners" forced them to learn English, they did because they either wanted to so that they could experience western culture, or had to because they had to deal with western business.
Also - Learn what gloablization is before you try to post this shit. Globaliztion does not mean a global government, it just means that the world becomes more unified. Gloabalization isn't ever going to be reached, its not a goal. Its a process, one that has been happening throughout time. Globaliztion has always been occuring, every time one tribe met a new tribe gloabalization was happening. One of the biggest events in globalization was when Columbus discovered America. Is this bad? Gloablization is occuring - the United Nations, the European Union.
Your ignorance overwhelmed and I couldn't continue reading this asanine post.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2003-12-20 23:45:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I think of globalization not as one govt taking over and forcing everyone to be the same, but as multinational corporations spoon feeding everyone the same food, music, TV, sports, etc... Which in a way sucks, yes your choices are watered down, and it causes cultures to change and become more western. But is this so bad, not all cultures are good, some in fact suck. A lot of people have shitty customs, shitty laws, shitty music and shitty food. In large doses globalization could wipe out other cultures, but in small doses, maybe people will listen to music other than some dude whailing out the Koran, maybe people will learn that women should be treated like people, and maybe people will learn how to make a decent fucking burger.
I promise you you would hate being in any country for more than two weeks that doesn't have a McDonalds.
Submitted by Persecuted (user info) at 2003-12-20 23:39:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There's also a reference to übersite in there.
Submitted by Persecuted (user info) at 2003-12-20 23:36:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't know whether to be offended of flattered.
I DID write this post...
....the formating is strange because I typed it up in note pad, and notepad doen't start a new line by itself, so I had to decide where the line should end.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2003-12-20 23:32:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
obvious cut and paste.
next time, try to dumb it down a little to make it more believable.
Submitted by Stupac (user info) at 2003-12-20 23:27:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The formating of this post leads me to believe that it was copied and pasted from an email. Next time bother to format it and I'll bother to read it.