Group+4+Midterm

Members: Rachel Woodworth, Felicia Obregon, Sabrina Smith, Veronica Perez, Ashley Vargas Questions: Sabrina (1), Ashley (2), Veronica (3), Rachel (4), Felicia (5)

1. **What is Globalization? Describe some of the differing characteristics of globalization offered by experts from the course readings. What are the various dimensions and dynamics of globalization discussed thus far in the Eitzen & Zinn book? Provide some description of each dimension and/or explain the 'dynamic' nature of globalization in some detail. What might be the benefits to globalization? What are the dangers or cautions of globalization? Include examples from the films, related readings and other sources.**

Globalization is the process that brings nations together through goods, free trade, information, people, fashion, free flow of capital, and cheaper foreign labor markets. For example, the internet permits people from all over the globe to communicate with each other.

According to Anthony Giddens, some experts believe that globalization is not occurring, and that countries do not make much of their income from trading world-wide. Instead, they make most of their income by exchanging products with regions. However, that idea differs from other experts who believe that globalization is occurring world-wide, and that world trade is at its highest point ever (Giddens, 2000, p.13). Globalization has been around for ages. However, it has changed in the sense that now, everything is done at a fast pace. Also, technology has evolved over the years, which makes it very convenient to be able to transact money with someone all the way across the world. Another differing characteristic of globalization includes, “the race to the bottom” situation, where jobs have moved to third world countries for lower wages. That was not the case with globalization thousands of years ago.

Globalization is not only economical, but also social, cultural, and political. An example of a dimension of economic globalization is, products such as shoes, clothes, and electronics are made in low wage countries, but are sold in the United States for a high price (Eitzen, Zinn, 2009, p.1). Another Example of Economic Globalization, that we somewhat discussed in class, was where clothing as well as other goods come from, and fair trade practices, etc. Pretty much if you were to check the tag on your shirt at any given time, it's difficult to find things that are made and sold in America to the average consumer. Globalization has greatly impacted what we purchase, the amount of things we purchase, and where we buy them from (ex.- our class discussion about Wal-Mart driving the price down on goods). A dimension of social globalization includes the ability to communicate with others who are across the world, in various ways. For example, we are capable of communicating with people who are in different countries by emailing, talking on the phone, writing them, and also through social networks. An example of cultural globalization is the fact that we have food from different cultures in America. For example, there is Indian, Greek, Mexican, Italian, and Chinese food in America. An example of political globalization is, the United Nations. An example of the benefits of globalization would be from the first film we saw in class. Through globalization it has been made easier for people to connect, and travel from one country to another. This can be both beneficial and harmful, as we saw in the case of the health opportunities in the Philippines. For example, there are opportunities available for women to build a career for themselves by becoming nurses, and they have the resources to take their practice to another country. On one hand you have the improvement of the lives of the woman and her family, but on the other, the country suffers from losing a much needed resource. It also doesn't help that the effect globalization has had on its economy has fueled the women's desire to seek a job elsewhere instead of staying to provide health care for their own country.

One example of the dangers of globalization that was stated in another class that I am in, is the effect iPods have on Chinese children. After working 34 hours straight with no contact with the outside world, these young factory workers will go onto the roof top and jump to their death because living in those conditions is worse than dying. The solution chosen by the factory owners was to hang nets up and take away the children's only escape from this horrible lifestyle. The new hires are forced to go through weeks military-style drilling, and in the workplace Chinese propaganda plays on the sound-system. Their pay is based on a points system, and points can't be deducted for things like yawning or walking quickly. Thankfully this has hit international news and something is being done about it. This shows globalization is bad and good, it was the reason why the children were killing themselves, but it is also the reason the factories were exposed in having cruel policies. Globalization has given countries the opportunity to broaden their markets, and has led to companies opting out for cheap labor overseas; which in turn has caused Americans to lose their own jobs, and ignited the fear of a shrinking job market, and a recession in the U.S. For every pro of globalization there is an equal con. For example, the use of television, internet, and social networking all over the world has given us the chance to spread ideas, news, and communication at a rapid rate, but with this constant access to information comes access to knowledge that could do harm. The soldiers that are in Afghanistan have access to wireless internet to communicate with their families, but if they are not careful enemies could intercept messages and find out certain locations, and upcoming missions. Also, even with this communication, it is up to us as individuals to decide what we want to do with it. There is so much information floating around about wars in other countries, mistreatment of people, and the inhumane treatment of people all over the world that it has caused us in a way to become de-synthesized.

Here's a video that breaks down globalization, for a better understanding: http://youtu.be/3oTLyPPrZE4

References

Eitzen, D. R., & Zinn, M. B. (2009). Globalization: The Transformation Of Social Worlds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Giddens, A. (2000). Globalisation. In Eitzen, D. R., & Zinn, M. B (Ed). Globalization: The Transformation of Social Worlds (12-18). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Opitz, F. (2007). The Big Sellout [Documentary]. Germany


 * 2. What does Williams (Rothenberg 2006) mean by "empire as a way of life"? Explain his use of this term in some detail. How does he distinguish between imperialism and colonialism? How have both colonialism and imperialism shaped our modern world and our current concept of "globalization"? (Greene, Kloby, and Rodney). How has it shaped views of race and racism? Give some detail about the ways your own understanding and definitions of colonization, globalization and imperialism have changed as a result of these readings and our class discussions. Offer some examples from the readings or your own research and experience.**

Williams stated “empire as a way of life,” is, “ …the combination of patterns of thought and action that, as it becomes habitual and institutionalized, defines the thrust and character of a culture and society.” (Williams, pg.81) This term describes how nations want to keep on expanding their markets, and will do anything to continue growing. For example, America is constantly finding new ways to expand their hold overseas to gain control of certain resources like oil. Also, this term is used to describe the power that people are willing to give up to their governments. As in U.S. citizens not voting or really caring for the political system, in a way they let the government decide. Williams mentions a quote from John Locke that says, "Empire as a way of life involves taking wealth and freedom away from others to provide for your own welfare, pleasure, and power" (Williams, p. 83). This ideology reminds me of the video, The Big Sell Out, because every family in Cochabamba, Bolivia had to pay Bechtel a quarter of their income every month, just for water. The World Bank can just simply pressure governments of different countries into paying them back. However, those countries do not have the funds to pay them back. So, through privatization, countries are forced into putting prices on things, causing the citizens of those countries that are in debt to the World Bank, to suffer the consequences. There is a distinct difference between colonialism, and imperialism. Colonialism is when a once unoccupied place becomes taken over and put under rule by another place; and imperialism is when a small agricultural society loses its power to a bigger urbanized society. These two factors have in every way shaped our concept of globalization, in making it the norm to keep on expanding, and conquering. For example, the video we watched on the privatization of electricity in Africa. Also, it has in every way affected views on race and racism, with one race being looked as “better” than another, which expands into the idea of Eurocentrism. Personally, after the readings I realized that the idea of colonialism is still in effect with America justifying cheap labor in other countries by saying, “We’re helping this third world country,” but in reality their cheap labor leads to more profit and expansion. This "empire as a way of life" and colonizing idea reminds me of what happened when the United States wrote a Declaration of Independence from England. They have become fed up with paying these outrageous taxes to the Royal Family and stood up for what they believed in. If these third world countries had the power and education that the settlers did in the US I believe that these low wage laborers would be standing up against all their harsh working environments, but I do also have to take into consideration the fact that there are more people in the world to easily take their place in the factories and no changes would be made. The readings and our class discussions have helped me grasp the whole concept of globalization. Before, I only saw the positive sides of globalization. For example, there is a McDonald's essentially everywhere, and how we can communicate with people who are across the world. Now, I know that there is another side of globalization, which includes children in other countries, who working in sweatshops, and privatization.

I think, actually, that through the various articles we've read in class about colonization it started to sound more like imperialism. The early settlers felt that they were bringing civilization to savages, when they were actually just looking out for themselves. They would come in, and force their ideas of what was right upon the local natives. My views of colonization has changed as a result of our readings bringing these ideas to light. I never really knew much about globalization until I took this class. At first the benefits of technology bringing people across the world closer together was an amazing thing to me. I would have probably though along the same lines of Friedman in his article about the world being flat. But I think the better argument can be found in Ghemawat's article (Eitzen & Zinn, pg 19 -29) combined with the myth of 'catching up.' Now though, I've become more aware of some of the more harmful things going around due to globalization.

Here is a short video about the history of colonialism in Africa: http://youtu.be/47wyvMv5ba8 Williams. W. (1980). Empire as a Way of Life. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.). Empire as a Way of Life//, p. 81-88//. New Jersey: McGraw. Opitz, F. (2007). The Big Sellout [Documentary]. Germany

====3. **The idea that the 'developing' or so-called 'third world' countries can 'catch up' by following the same path of industrialization, technological progress and capital accumulation that has been practiced by an industrialized 'developed' world is a pervasive idea in Western Politics and economics. Mies calls this a 'myth' and offers her views about this assertion. Why does she (and Rodney) refute the 'myth'? Explain their position and give several examples that substantiate this argument from our readings and from your own experiences and related research.**====

Mies brings to our attention that not only is this concept a myth, but puts forth that it is an impossibility. She states that, “...just as one colony may, after much effort, attain what was considered the ultimate in 'development', the industrial centres themselves have already 'progressed' to yet a more 'modern' stage of development” (Mies, 1993). The biggest way this can be seen is by looking at technology. It is always changing, and getting better as time goes on. Corporations are always trying to out do each other and develop the newest, and latest gadgets; which can be seen with the continuous development of laptops, smart phones, and tablets. It's not surprising to see then, that the concept of what would be considered 'good living' would evolve so much over time that once an underdeveloped town has reached that goal, it would be outdated to the point that they are still behind. This, combined with the fact that the more affluent societies use so much more of our resources only adds to their difficulties. Also, it is hard for these underdeveloped countries to "catch up," with a more advanced country like America, because America is using up resources and cheap labor of these countries to keep on growing. For example, the world bank lends money to a third world country like Africa, so they can use that loan to "catch up," and progress, but in reality, this country now has to follow the rules of the world bank. Which can include privatizing, and selling off their resources; so now instead of catching up, they are trying to survive. She then goes on to point out that the promise of happiness is left unfulfilled in these more developed societies. More money only brought more problems with it to the point where people try to get away from busier cities to seek the calmer refuge of more country areas (Mies, 1993). Mies thinks that the "catching up" idea is a myth, because she believes that developing countries must accept who is "on top," and who is not. Mies also believes that the "catch up" idea would furthermore lead to destruction, oppression, and exploitation. Mies explains her position by saying that by the time the under developed country starts catching up, developed countries, will progress even more. It would just be impossible for an underdeveloped country to catch up to one that is already developed and progressing even more.

Rodney shows us many great examples of this same myth with the ways Africa was affected by Europe. One that really stood out to me was in the development of hospitals. While Europe claimed to be helping the civilizations with various programs to help improve life, the sad reality was that more was being done to help the white settlers first and those who needed it second (Rodney, 1972). It proves the point that while we claim to say it would be easy for these underdeveloped areas, and while we see they should be helped achieve this as it is the ideal way of life, we are doing little to aid them.

The idea of third world countries "catching up" to more developed countries is in fact, an impossibility as previously stated. Unfortunately in this case, the idea of "Where there's a will, there's a way" is irrational. To evolve a country that has been classified as being third world up to the level of the United States or any other well-developed country is just not possible. The Sheer amount of time, money and energy it would take to even BEGIN to change these underdeveloped countries is enough to scare any rational person away from wanting to help. Sure, if you stay up late at night and decide to support some starving child in Uganda for 30 dollars a month, because it's the right thing to do and it makes you feel like a better person is one thing. But to truly make a lasting impact on this earth, It would be difficult to imagine how much of a monetary expense that would be, as well as changing an ENTIRE civilization from one way of life to another, it's just not going to happen.

After reading The Myth of Catching-Up article and the discussions we have had in class as well as my other classes; I have come to the conclusion that there is more behind the world bank and powerful countries keeping these underdeveloped countries from succeeding. If you think about Iraq, Iran, and Africa they have very valuable resources that every country on this planet would love to have in their own back yard. If these countries were to succeed and "catch-up" with countries like America and China they would have control over us. They do not have the power to raise to a world power because the world powers now will not allow it.

References: Mies. M. (1993). The Myth of Catching-up Development. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.). //Beyond Borders, p. 150-157//. New York: Worth Publishers. Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.). //Beyond Borders, p. 107-125//. New York: Worth Publishers.

===** 4. What is Eurocentrism (Amin, Glenn,Pettman)? What is the relationship of 'race' to Eurocentrism? Glenn claims that 'whiteness' is a legacy of colonialism. Why does she make this claim? Would you claim that the 'globalization of culture' moves in one direction - toward Westernization or is there some indication that a 'global culture' might be possible? What evidence of a 'global culture' exist? What evidence, conversely,exists of a 'clash of civilizations'? Use current examples from world events and other information to make your points. **=== References: References: Beyond Borders pg. 81-125 Eurocentrism, according to the miriam-webster dictionary, is an adjective meaning "centered on Europe or the Europeans ; especially: reflecting a tendency to interpret the world in terms of western and especially European or Anglo-American values and experiences." So basically seeing the world through the eyes of a European, therefore also thinking that Europeans are more intelligent and more sophisticated than the rest of the world. And obviously the globalization of culture is westernization...There is not a country on this earth that is striving to become like some rural Asian tribe, or like some poverty stricken Indian city with no indoor plumbing. As far as having a Global Culture, it's inevitable. With Social media and technology moving in the direction that it is, we can all hope there will be a day when every nation in the world is as "civilized" as the West. And as far as a "Clash of Civilizations," look at the war on Afghanistan! The United States is forcing themselves onto the people of Afghanistan, whether they want our input or not. Afghanistan is a perfect example of a 'clash of civilizations,' take the recent Quran burnings by American soldiers. The Afghani people's whole way of life is based around this book, so when they found some had been burned, it caused instant uproar and riots. The United states has a tendency of a "My way or the highway" kind of attitude when it comes to dealing with citizens from other nations with different viewpoints. Also, other countries view the West (America) as a country with the solutions. For instance, take the recent viral spread of a video urging Americans to come together to stop Kony, the leader of the LRA. When there is a problem in the world people look to America for help; which could be said for many world issues that are going on currently. Eurocentrism has also imbedded this idea that the Caucasian race is superior to all other races. For example, when the British came over to America they viewed Indians as heathens who had to be converted. Then, as colonization progressed, slaves were brought over from Africa to the New World to do all of the work; and these slaves were not viewed as human beings, but instead they were property. The violence against Indians and Africans was unthinkable, but was justified by this Eurocentric idea that "Europeans are better."

I found this image online which I believe portrays Eurocentrism accurately : []

And as far as Eurocentrism and race are related, whiteness is what is "desired." It's just like the skin-lightening thing that we talked so much about in class about a month ago. For whatever reason, there is huge appeal to people in appearing as white as possible, and many will even go to the lengths of whitening or bleaching their skin to appear more white. Which then brought up the question in class of, well then why do some people intentionally try and tan themselves to try and appear like they have been in the sun? Because in our society, to have a kind of job which allows you to get some sun and some color in your skin, is a bit of a status symbol. It shows that you can afford to spend some time at the golf course or the beach, or the pool, because you are just so inherently wealthy that you can't be bothered with things like sitting at a desk under florescent lighting like the rest of us. There is a fascinating TV show on TLC called "My strange addiction", Here is a clip from the episode where there is an African American girl who bleaches her skin to look whiter : []

Glenn makes the claim that 'whiteness' is a legacy of colonialism, because like colonialism, some people think that 'whiteness' is the best; like they would think having a colonized country is better. Eurocentrism is everywhere, from the people you associate with; to even what type of clothes you wear. Glenn mentions that during slavery, light complected slaves were treated better than the other slaves. They had easier jobs, and worked in the master's house, while the other slaves had to work out in the field, in the sun(Glenn, 2008, 169). This example would be a reason why people have the mentality that white, or close to white as you can get, is better, because they are usually treated better. The thing about eurocentrism is that it could be committed unknowingly. For example, black women who put relaxers on their hair to make it straight and not hard to manage are guilty of the mentality that 'whiteness' is better, because they would rather have hair that is more socially accepted, than to wear their hair natural.

Thinking about the concepts from my articles I can see some similarities between this concept of a European centered thinking, and the kind of naive thinking that the white settlers in Africa were helping the surrounding communities when they colonized. The settlers also believed that they were helping bring civilization to these more barbaric people. And while I know I mentioned it in class, it was interesting to realize the kind of subliminal way it is being taught in school (Rothenburg, pg 76). I had never thought about it until we discussed it in class, and realized how the area in which you live effects what you are taught. Having gone to high school out of state, it never occurred to me that I hadn't taken Texas history, or that I should have as part of my high school education. It all goes back to how we tend to be self-centered in our relation with the rest of the world. References Glenn, E. N (2008). Globalisation. In Eitzen, D. R., & Zinn, M. B (Ed). Globalization: The Transformation of Social Worlds (165-180). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Going off of the paragraph above me; education in the United States public school system is the perfect example of Westernization. I attended Robert E. Lee HS in San Antonio, Texas, my brother is attending a magnet school at the same campus called The International School of the Americas (ISA). In his curriculum they talk about about world issues and not just focusing on American history and briefly touching on global issues like my high school did. One requirement is to do a 4 year portfolio with what he has learned about the world and he also has a little under 200 hours of community service to complete before graduating. If all of our schools taught this way I believe Americans would be more sensitive to global issues and we would try to understand countries like Afghanistan.

====5. Jan Pettman says, "within conventional histories of colonialism, women are largely absent". How does her attempt to reclaim women's history enrich, complicate and transform our understanding of colonialism? (pg.142 Beyond Borders) ==== - Jan Pettman wants to break the stereotype of previous notions that colonizer women were the demise of the empire and were more racist than the men they shared their lives with. There has been new evidence proving that not all women of this time were absent; some women had influences in politics and carried a lot of weight inside their own homes. Not all women of this time just sat around and took these horrible injustices; women formed together and tried their best to fight the treatment they were enduring. With that said she did however, point out, that even though white women were inferior in gender, they were superior in race. They might not of had say in their household against men, but in the colonies they had say over the inferior races.

When you just look at the basic history of our nation, as well as others, it's obvious that women are totally absent from large portions of history due to lack of basic rights for women. Even in the United States, Women were not given the right to vote until 1920, and by that point in time, the United States had already elected 28 presidents without a single female vote. It is interesting to think about how the history of our nation may have turned out so much differently if perhaps women had been given the right to vote earlier. Maybe our country would be totally different, who knows. And outside of America, still to this day in 2012 in Saudi Arabia every woman regardless of age MUST always have a male guardian. //(// //[|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia])//

I think that in her article she brings attention to a lot of very good examples of how women were considered inferior to men, and looked down upon. She helps bring a different side of colonization to mind, very little is said about how little women were thought of. One example of hers that I found interesting was of sexual politics. The idea that it was acceptable for men to have relations with women of color was acceptable, but men of color that had relations with white women were strongly punished. The point she illustrates is that there was an idea that men were allowed to be unfaithful, but women were property that had to remain faithful (Rothenburg, pg 146-147). One example that proves this article to be true is the story of some of the early president's of the United States; men of stature and people that the whole nation looked to were having relations with their slaves and reproducing with no scandal or harm to their political standing. On the other hand, if one of the first ladies were to be doing the same thing, the press would attack her and her reputation would be tainted along with most likely a divorce! I'm also sure they affair the first lady had with a colored person would effect the way the country viewed her husband; the President, but not consequences came to the president like George Washington, who was rumored to have fathered many interracial children with his slaves.

Pettman's article brings forth a very different account of women during the colonization period. During one of our class discussions, we discussed that women were blamed for 'loss of empire.' However, women were viewed as absent during this time period, so they certainly cannot be the blame for something so immense. Pettman proves this statement to be false, because she states, "They tell a different story of gender and race relations, seeking to refute the scapegoating of white-coloniser women and the trivialisation of their lives as decorative assessories of empire." She also adds that, “..white women were the victims of the actions of white men” (Pettman, 1996, 143). This proves that colonizer women were used as the scapegoat so that men would not be held responsible for the loss of empire.

====Using current examples from the economic, political and cultural dimensions of globalization, how are women still absent or misrepresented in globalization? ==== ====In the middle east, there are still misrepresented and absent in the political world of their country. For example, women in Iraq and Iran can be stoned to death for being raped with their rapist going without consequence. The reason behind these actions are a lot like the views of colonizing people a long time ago as stated on page 147 in the //Beyond Borders// book.==== Along with that, a way that women are grossly absent from globalization in Iran is that although women are technically legally allowed to run for parliament, and to travel freely, They are still subjected to being physically beaten by police, they are not protected against domestic violence, and are often discriminated against when it comes to inheritance law. //([])// Globalization today is more about the westernization of countries like the ones stated above, but these middle eastern countries treatment of their women is based on their religion, so to try and impose America's view of women today on them causes those countries to dislike the idea of westernization. Women have come along way from the first days of colonization in the New World; they now have more of a voice and say in politics. However, the voice that women now have is not focused on in globalization, but rather the over sexualized image of western women is. Western women are being portrayed as these sexual beings who are concerned with the superficial things is life, rather than being portrayed as intelligent women. Politically women have a voice in America, with Hilary Clinton even running for president; but in middle eastern countries this is unheard of, and seen as blasphamy. Women in third world countries have the more "traditional roles," such as staying home, and doing "women's work," and are resistant to the globalization of the idea of "western women."

One example of misrepresentation that I can think of is that there still exists this barrier of what men and women can do in society. Granted there is more job opportunities for women, and they have been gaining more ground in the work force, but there are still discrepancies. Women are still being underpaid, despite laws and efforts to make them equal. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States ) While there are efforts being made to change the idea that things like fashion should only concern women, and that men in fashion must be gay because it is considered a negative thing for guys to like things that girls do. Guys that have any interest in things women traditionally do are looked down upon, as if the things that women do are beneath them.

In Class, We watched a portion of a documentary entitled "The Corporation" In this film, you see how much of an impact that corporations have on our culture, and on our world as a whole. Whether it be positive, like Pfizer providing housing to lower income families in New York city, or negative like Nestle destroying the water supply of many rural areas, Corporations play a huge part in how the world works. Women have also been misrepresented in economic and political dimensions of globalization because out of the 500 corporate executive officers belonging to fortune 500 companies, Only 11 of which are currently female, and there has never been more than 16 female CEO's of Fortune 500 companies at one point in time. Maybe if women had been given more rights earlier on, And were more involved in the business sector, There would be more Women at the head of Fortune 500 companies, and Women would be much more represented in the Economic Sector. (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/full_list/)

Pettman, J. J. (1996). Empire as a Way of Life. In P. Rothenberg (Ed). Beyond Borders: Thinking Critically About Global Issues (142-148). New York, NY: Worth Publishers. 