Globalism is a technoligy driven event, logical consequence of better and faster communication. Sit back and enjoy, little else you can do.
Printable View
Globalism is a technoligy driven event, logical consequence of better and faster communication. Sit back and enjoy, little else you can do.
A wrong headed assumption I feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
The creation of the Global south is more than just a simple expansion of global markets under the eye of a single superpower. Africa was cracked open before the US got there, indeed some may say that it was under exploitation from others before the Europeans got there. To lay the blame on one or even a few countries, is an historical absurdity. God one could put forward a case that the reason for rapid expansion of the Roman Empire in the First Century was in fact a drive by the Equestrians for more markets. A flawed argument I believe.
I would like you to back up or even explain the assumptions you made about the eventual state of Global affairs in the future.
Ya, and way before america became a superpower, did spawn a few banana-republics in South/middle america but that was later. Europe and especially Belgium was the big cheese in Africa and before that the arabs. Read up on tippu tip, one of the more notorius ones. My canoe my beautifull canoe :beam:
Have you ever seen the old maps with a quarter of the globe covered in a pink hue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
Or the Dutch influence in far shores such as Formosa (Taiwan) or Indonesia or Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania)...
etc
I think the Rwanda example has more merit concerning this matter. We clearly remember more those tragedies provoqued by humans upon humans, and we remember more the closer in time and space we're to it, I don't think that the quantity of lives counts. I think it all has to do with the disgust it produces to witness humans killing humans, there's will and intention, nature doesn't act at all. The OJ Simpson case, the Manson case and the Columbia case are all remembered because of that same fact, while the terrible earthquake that ended the lives of thousands of people on Peru is barely mentioned on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
EDIT: Yes I know ironic that all the cases I mention are american cases, but if I name others perhaps the rest of the people here won't remember them or know them at all...:sweatdrop:
Agreed with this, I couldn't have said it better. But then again, forums, like this one, help a lot to make things that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Indeed, a different kind of globalization (large area, low intensity and impact) to what we have now (large area, high intensity and impact), but that shows it's not a completely recent phenomenon. All this stuff about corporate empires being the future ruling over nationstates... it's a very simplistic view that ignores the historical context; people barely agree on the definition of globalization, let alone the direction it's heading in or its implications for individual nation states. Things will change, that's clear, but haven't they always done so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The globalization process is only one, it begun with mercantilism which forced international relationships to progress at a certain level of exchange (beggining by manufactured products), and then it hasn't stopped since. Today we export and import much more than just manufactured products, I think that the article makes the point, sound point, that we ought to begin exporting and importing history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Arguably globalization isn't the same process as mercantilism. Things certainly changed for the worse between the two world wars, and it's debatable if the process after WW2 is the same as the one before WW1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
I disagree about exporting and importing history, in a way. I agree that more general knowledge on the rest of the world in basic education is a must (topography, population numbers), but what the article comes dangerously close to in my opinion is a relativist approach to history in which supposed universal values can be applied to vaguely similar processes around the world processes (terrorism, nationalism, globalization itself). While it's definitely plausible that in some form such universal values exist it's impossible to teach them at a low level as suggested without losing the essentials of the arguments, without emphasising the uniqueness of each situation, and without the final summary becoming a simplistic version of a decent explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
To some degree such simplification is already clearly noticeable in school history books on national history which in general aim to raise feelings of nationhood (ie. start of the people to the development of the nationstate), let alone what would happen if such principles are applied to a far more abstract and easily-abused process such as globalization. A lot of people already struggle seperating fact from fiction, objectivity from propaganda with regards to their own nation and even more so when it comes to foreign countries: I say that would need sorting out way before a start can be made educating about the rest of the world without descending into biased, and potentially dangerous simplifications of such major processes.
Edit: humbug. Reading that again is thoroughly confusing. I'll probably have to type out something more coherent another time when I've had some sleep...
I really didn't meant that mercantilism and globalization were or are one and the same, just that they begun at about the same time, one being the cause of the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
If you apply the same set of values to different situations that's more like absolutism, not relativism. Now I don't think that the article is suggesting that, I believe that he parts from the ignorance of a certain public in general and how to remedy that. Now as Hannibal used to say "communication, Clarice" that's the option he offers as solution for this problem. A conversion (or as an analogy: trade) between different nations or States, opposed versions of the same tale looking for intersections or contrary versions of them to look for agreements, in general bigger knowledge for everyone involved by knowing the other part. After all you can't really understand a nation or an State if you don't know its history...Hard task though, that of teaching global history...Quote:
I disagree about exporting and importing history, in a way. I agree that more general knowledge on the rest of the world in basic education is a must (topography, population numbers), but what the article comes dangerously close to in my opinion is a relativist approach to history in which supposed universal values can be applied to vaguely similar processes around the world processes (terrorism, nationalism, globalization itself). While it's definitely plausible that in some form such universal values exist it's impossible to teach them at a low level as suggested without losing the essentials of the arguments, without emphasising the uniqueness of each situation, and without the final summary becoming a simplistic version of a decent explanation.
This is true, but I believe that the simplification is not based on a reduction to axioms, is more of a vehicle to conviniently teach a swallowable version of such a big history in an space of 10 years aprox. (I don't know how much primary and college lasts in your country), if that's what you meant. A sociologist once said (I don't remember his name, but he was german) on a EU conference that to form a nation's identity, as that of an individual, the things that stain its history are as important as the things that make them shine, refering specifically to the issue of the Nazi process, when people suggested that it had to be concealed or told in such a way that it really didn't form a part of the nation's identity. I think that's a clear point made by the article, and one with which I strongly agree, even more being argentinian I had a lot of bad things to tell...:yes:Quote:
To some degree such simplification is already clearly noticeable in school history books on national history which in general aim to raise feelings of nationhood (ie. start of the people to the development of the nationstate), let alone what would happen if such principles are applied to a far more abstract and easily-abused process such as globalization. A lot of people already struggle seperating fact from fiction, objectivity from propaganda with regards to their own nation and even more so when it comes to foreign countries: I say that would need sorting out way before a start can be made educating about the rest of the world without descending into biased, and potentially dangerous simplifications of such major processes.
Do not worry I think I got it :2thumbsup:Quote:
Edit: humbug. Reading that again is thoroughly confusing. I'll probably have to type out something more coherent another time when I've had some sleep...
Although I agree mostly with what you say, I think previously the intensity was somewhat stronger... East India Company was certainly a corporate empire that modern corporations could only dream of having that relative power and control levels...Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
I feel Mercantilism is in a position of direct opossition to the free market features of Globalization.
Indeed many on the global south (and some in the global north) simply believe Globalization to be a new buzz word for capitalism. Thus also of Neocolonialism.
I believe that Globalization, although a result of Europe's Mercantilist policies from the 16th cen. onwards, is an unwelcome idea. The idea that it entails a free market is probably their worst nightmare come true.
A feeling mirrored by those of the global south.