Would you consider globalization to be more like Samuel Huntington describes it as a clash of civilization in the sense of a rejection of overlapping cultural identities or as Thomas Friedman describes it as a conflict of cultural tradition and modernization?
2007-02-27 16:41:07 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Globalisation is the downfall of both the devolping nations and the "first" world countries. Multinationals are free to exploit peoples rights and third world countries are forced to accept it so the trade doesnt go else where. After all, $1 a day is better than another worker in another country getting that $1. Globalisation has killed the culture of these devolping nations by taking destroying their livlihoods and changing the market in which they operate. These countries weren't just born poor.
MNC havent helped the first world in ways that we would have expected either. Sure, the rich have gotten richer. Thats bound to happen in a capitalist society. The problem is that the working class are getting an even rawer deal as their working wages and conditions are having to be lowered so they can be competive in the global market. If they wont work for peanuts they will send the work offshore to someone that will. This loses jobs in our homeland. Its one nasty and vicious circle.
Globalisation isnt about modernization, its about exploitation.
And to the poster who said its the survival of the fittest...Social Darwinism was a weak theory at its invention and practically non-existant or relevant in the field of sociology today. You need to find a better argument than that.
Ok, I've ranted and gone off topic. Stopping.
2007-02-27 17:07:28 · answer #1 · answered by Meg D 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Cultural identities and cultural tradition go hand in hand, if not identical. Cultural clash as a result of globalization in my opinon is as obvious as the tradition of Allah and the tradition of Jesus. Neither tradition is very modern and it seems to me that these belief systems do indeed clash with modernization.
2007-02-27 16:47:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It will be a simple case of survival of the fittest. If you and your culture are fit, you will survive. Besides cultures have always overlapped and modernity has always been an integral part of most cultures ~ globalisation has speeded up this process beyond our ability to get along with it.
2007-02-27 16:45:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither! The whole package is a rip off where greed seduces the non thinking with, "it is cheaper to build it there than here!" And I have to build it cheaper in order to compete!
Compete with whom?
It cost X-amount to live in the USA infrastructure!
.i.e pay rent, ride the bus, buy food, clothing, go to school, sidewalks, roads, highways, etc, etc.
Basic wages have to cover that cost on its lowest scale other wise the people are on the streets without food.
China or India's infrastructure costs are much cheaper than Americas because they have not raised the standard of living of the masses to the USA standard! But, they make enough, for the most part, to exist in their infrastructure.
Comparing living cost is a joke!
Globalization = "I want to build and sell there as well as here", .i.e "I want more" Americas standard of living has been on a downward slide every since the word "Globalization"
America no longer manufactures anything that any other country wants to buy? And since we buy
rather than make, how do we get back the money spent? Question our world debt! Question our dollar exchange rate! It went from 4.1 in our favor to .79 to one in EURO favor! Worse, America does not have the gold or resources to pay our debt! VA does not have the money to care for veterans! Our troops do not have the best war equipment! GLOBALIZATION?????
2007-02-27 17:00:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Viruses do evolve, and the easy chilly and additionally the flu viruses are stunning examples. Why can we could desire to consistently get yet another flu shot according to annum? because of the fact the only that secure us from final year's viruses do no longer artwork to any extent further. that distinctive virus has mutated right into a greater moderen version. we've not yet been waiting to even layout a vaccine for the easy chilly, because of the fact the chilly virus takes distinctive varieties concurrently, and we can't shop up with its many varieties. For the main section viruses have not got a could desire to conform to something greater till they are compelled to because of the fact of an prompt attack on their survival. we've not have been given adequate of a handle on the HIV virus yet to be waiting to threaten it very heavily, however the risk of its mutation is often there.
2016-09-30 00:18:15 · answer #5 · answered by schiraldi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although globalization will effortlessly bring back discrimination at the highest level. It will come down to military readiness to survive. Oil and wealth will be taken from countries more openly in the future, and no-one will have to hide their ambitions. All hell will break loose - segregation at the world level for domination. Hell its already happening all over the world today, just who are we kidding.
2007-02-27 16:57:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Neither. Globalization is primarily an economic term characterized by the dropping of trade barriers mainly profiting huge retailers like Walmart. Its a disaster for developed countries like the US and boom times for cheap labor countries like China and India..
2007-02-27 16:49:50 · answer #7 · answered by Michael da Man 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Meg D your answer is awesome, and I am one of the multitude in this country who have to live with loss of decent jobs, because it is cheaper for the greedy, multinational corporations to go overseas and exploit those people. You are completely correct!!!!
2007-02-27 19:10:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋