Yes, especially in poorer countries. However, I also think that it can spread cultural diversity.
Here's some examples of that from Wikipedia:
Culturally
Greater international cultural exchange,
Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity, for example through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies. However, the imported culture can easily supplant the local culture, causing reduction in diversity through hybridization or even assimilation. The most prominent form of this is Westernization, but Sinicization of cultures also takes place.
Greater international travel and tourism
Greater immigration, including illegal immigration
Spread of local foods such as pizza, Chinese and Indian food/Pakistani Food to other countries (often adapted to local taste)
World-wide Fads and Pop Culture such as Pokémon, Sudoku, Numa Numa, Origami, Idol series, YouTube, MySpace, and many others.
Increasing usage of foreign phrases. Example... "Amigo" and "Adios" are Spanish terms many non-speaking spanish people in the US understand, Most Americans understand some French, Spanish or Japanese without actually knowing the language.
2006-07-16 14:34:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by donna_irene_mohr 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, but not necessarily.
Globalization is the the world-wide spread of two ideologies: - liberal democracy and capitalism.
Liberal democracy is the promotion of personal liberty and political democracy. Capitalism is swindling regulated by laws.
Unfortunately, liberal democracy has no real answer to the power of money, which will eventually lead to the de facto domination of all facets of life by a conglomerate of mega-corporations.
Globalization is Westernization not because these ideologies happen to be Western in origin but because one Western nation, the U.S.A., has a head-start in applying them.
But it is possible that a non-Western nation (probably Asian) might overtake the U.S.
In any case, the triumph of capitalism will mean the *effective* end of nations. Political entities such as nations might continue to have the facade of power, but the real power will be in the hands of the managers of money and technology.
The *ultimate* power, however, will be where it has always been - in the hands of Mother Nature.
2006-07-16 19:22:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by brucebirdfield 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Globalization refers to an ECONOMICAL globalization...
so what happens is that each country with any kind of economic clout will come in and integrate their culture in this pool...
consider it the melting plot principle where we each lose our current identity and change into a new one. It is interesting that you chose "westernization" because the melting pot theory is a western theory...
The answer to your question is, in practice, globalization is an integrated hodge-podge of all the cultures... not necessarily western... (consider the take of japanese manga and anime stuff... that are mixing into our culture... and they are as east as they get)... but can be traced back to the economic powers of the world.
In theory though, the origin of the theory is primarily viewed as a western theory.
I guess i dont really know what you mean by equals westernization. and should be clarified as theoretical or practical in nature.
goodluck
~M
2006-07-16 14:30:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by M 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think globalisation is the process of giving western private power (aka American corporations) more and more power in every single country on earth. The US government (with the world's most formidable military) is used as a tool of western private power (American corporations) to coerce the countries of the world to accept whatever trade agreements and general policies are dictated to them, whether agreements and policies are good for the people of the nation or not, and whether they are democratically accepted or not - in most cases such policies of globalisation are forced on the people of any given country against their best interest and against their will.
The US government is controlled by the corporations, not by the people of the US, who merely get to choose from candidates who are sponsored by and acceptable to the corporations. The corporations control the US government with the appearance of democracy in the United States, and the US government controls the rest of the human population in reality by force, not democratically. In this fashion, the corporations can spend only a fraction of the money needed to maintain the illusion of democracy, as they only need to convince ~60 million Americans (half of the voters) rather than half of the world population, which is the primary reason that there are still independent nations - so that private power can rule most of the world population by force (which does work) rather than by reasoned concensus (which wouldn't work with 5+billion enslaved people who live below the poverty line and who lack most necessities).
When private power has diluted democracy and human rights sufficiently around the world, it will be able to eliminate nations and bring about full globalisation, which as can already be seen, will also eliminate the superfluous abundance of wealth in the American middle class, which only exists so that the American voters will continue to support the corporations' candidates.
2006-07-16 14:54:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It means capitalism.
Domination of all markets worldwide.
Centralization of banks.
Franchisement of all city space.
And all the necessary provisions to bring
about this technical marvel.
Which is indeed-- western "democracy"
Otherwise capital won't flow,
investors will be discouraged, being realists and xenophobic.
2006-07-16 15:25:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by -.- 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes due to most of the powerful countries are western...
2006-07-16 14:21:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by gothicirishpeople 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
in about 500 years the western sheep will be the victim of my kind!
sheep are simply stupid!
and they hate the superior!
naturally.
2006-07-16 14:30:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Keeping in mind Japan's tremendous influence on neighboring countries I would have to disagree.
2006-07-16 15:01:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by hq3 6
·
0⤊
0⤋