Dana Kravitz
GVPT200
Shirk
12/4/13
Globalization
Though
there are many positive aspects of globalization such as trade and an
interconnected world, overall I think that globalization can be a very negative
thing for the world. Globalization can sometimes be harmful because it takes
away states individuality, the environment is being negatively effected, and it
keeps the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor.
Every
country thinks that their way of doing things is the best. So when
globalization occurs, powerful countries want people in weaker states to
assimilate to their culture. By doing this, the world loses all of its diverse
and interesting cultures. For example, when Columbus came to the Americas he
wanted the Indians to be more like him. He pushed Christianity on them and
wanted them to follow his customs. This continued as more countries colonized
in places such as Africa and South America. Though the idea of the world living
in unity is a positive theory, it is not beneficial if places lose their
individualism. In class we talked about “the other” and whether globalization
pushes them away or brings countries together. I think it creates a greater
wedge between the countries because not all want to assimilate or do as we do
and when they do not it creates tension.
The environment
also causes issues for globalization. The United States and China are
responsible for the majority of Green House Gases emitted into the world. Since
the environment is shared by everyone this does not seem to be fair. The
behavior of one state effects what happens in another states and this can take
place with no human interaction. The world’s states share natural resources so
two major countries destroying the environment effects everyone. When going to
third world or developing country and attempting to improve it by bringing in
technology we are further destroying the environment because more resources are
being used. Even when globalization is good in a humanitarian since it can
still be negative when it comes to the environment.
Globalization does not necessary
improve the world’s economy. For example, workers in higher wage countries are
losing their jobs. Since poorer countries pay there workers less many American
blue-collar jobs have been moved to countries like China and India. This has
hurt the American economy and has helped America’s rich get richer and poor
become poorer. Along with this it makes
the richer countries stay rich and the poorer countries stay poor. Though in
theory one would think that trade among countries would benefit all, it is not
necessarily a fair system. Wealthier nations can pay very little for a product
and then sell it for much more in their county.
Though
globalization bring together countries and can positively effect the world we
cannot ignore its negative aspects too, such as the individuality it takes from
countries and peoples, the harmful effects it has on the environment, and the
fact that it does not do that much good for the world’s economy.
I disagree with your point that globalization does not necessarily improve the world's economy. The world would be better off with factors of trade and communication between states, than without it. Although outsourcing is an issue, it is better to work together with other states than to be secluded and individualized.
ReplyDeleteI agree that colonization can be negative and I agree with your example referring to Columbus. However, in some cases, more powerful states helped improve the status of colonies or other states.
Like I said I globalization is not all bad and I definitely think we need it as a world but that does not mean we have to go about it this way. I personally think the issue of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is a serious problem in our country and in our world. Though I agree with you that we should not be secluded we also need to acknowledge the flaws in the system to improve the lives of many. I agree that colonization can sometimes be beneficial however most of the time the colony or smaller states have to give up their individuality to economically benefited which is unfair for the weaker states.
DeleteI like your example of Columbus coming to the Americans and trying to 'assimilate' the Native Americans, but was there culture and diversity truly lost globalization? Although it is true that the discovering of the Americas by Europeans decimated the Native American population and many lives were lost, but they still exist today and their culture is still vibrant. I think you made a good point of portraying the environmental impacts of globalization though. But doesn't the ends (i.e. helping developing countries) justify the means (i.e. resources, fossil fuels)? Helping developing countries may exhaust more natural resources but isn't it only for the greater good (most of the time)?
ReplyDeleteNative Americans have had to fight for their individuality since the day Columbus landed in the Americas. Whether it be the Indian War, the trail of tears, or the fact that Native Americans were not granted US citizenship until 1924 it is clear that there is a constant battle. Also, today the US population is made up of less than 1% of practicing Native Americans and many of them live in poverty. Also, though I think it is important for larger countries to help out developing countries these fossil fuels are destroying the earth. I am not saying that we should not help them, I only mean that the way we are going about globalization at this time is not the way to do it.
DeleteI think you took a stance that was not obvious and it made for an interesting read. All of your points make logical sense and it is clear what the real negative aspects of globalization are. Although at times globalizations seems unfortunate, globalization also allows for the spread of economic risk, which helps evoke hope in the potential of having a booming economy. It is also something we can not live without this day in age because of the interconnectedness due to technology. I completely see your point though and think you did a great job!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your paper and seeing all of the points you have made about globalization being to en extent quite negative i agree partially and disagree partially too; i agree with what others have said about globalization being a necessary tool to improve conditions in parts of the world where there is much more poverty, and at the same time it makes the world more united. But the parts of globalization i disagree with such as Dana said are the fact that it sometimes requires "the other" to assimilate against their will if they don't agree with out beliefs completely. Overall i like all of your points supporting your argument and your essay is easy to comprehend. I guess in the grand scheme of globalization i guess its safe to say; you win some you lose some, it cant be perfect but its a relatively good concept overall in my opinion.
ReplyDelete