Group+2+Midterm

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE DISCUSSION POSTS FOR FEEDBACK FROM ME. Your discussion need to be there, not on this page.
Members: Taylor Lara, Kristina Palacios, Austin Livingston, Adlen Medina, Daniel Garcia

Question 1: (Austin's question)


 * 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 descriptions 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, at its heart is the increasingly strong connections between cultures, economies and people. It can refer to economic globalization; the global production and distributions of goods and services through removal of trade barriers, tariffs and import quota.Globalization has many effects and depending how you look at it, can be good or bad. Globalization has become something of a ‘westernization’ of the world; making cultures more akin to the United States. This could be devastating to many people if you looked at it from a cultural view. By ‘westernizing’ the globe we become one technological, cheap and convenient culture losing our cultural roots and becoming an actual melting pot. On the other hand, globalization may have much to offer to the underdeveloped countries. The faster technology develops, the easier and cheaper it might be to access for the governments that can afford them, but will they give to the people? That’s another argument. Some good things about globalization could be the exchanging with other countries. If more companies exchange their ideas than the initial idea becomes more broad. So it is possible for globalization to have positive effects.

Some of the benefits of globalization is that there is a worldwide market for companies and consumers to access products from different countries. Each country can learn about other countries as well. Globalization provides economic growth and creates jobs. Some dangers of globalization are that it keeps the rich richer and the poor people stay poor or get poor. It also promotes unfair and unsafe working conditions. To the people in charge making their money, they really don't care or are affected by it as long as the jobs get done and their pockets get fatter.

One example of globalization was that not that long ago here in San Antonio the Levis Company left a lot of citizens from here without a job and left to el Salvador and opened their company over there because of cheaper labor. The only ones that suffered though were the workers that used to work for Levis because they lost their jobs and it wasn't beneficial to the consumer’s ether because their jeans didn't get any cheaper. But the owners of Levis just got richer because they got more profit and they didn't have to offer any insurance or worry about having to have good working conditions.

Also some other dangers are Trade and investment liberalization, long viewed in much of the developing world, is facing growing skepticism in rich countries. Therefore, related fears came in its annual international employment outlook. It said it needed to reassess the impact of freer trade on workers because a "wedge" had appeared between the rosy analysis put forward by economists and "the much more skeptical view of the general public".


 * Question 2: (Adlen's Question)**


 * 2. What does Williams (Rothenberg, 2006) mean by empire as a way of life? Explain the use of this term in some detail. How does he distinguished between imperialism and colonialism? How have both colonialism and imperialism shaped our modern world and our current concept of globalization? (Greene, Klobyand Rodney). How has it shaped views of race and racism? Give some details 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.**


 * Rothenberg means many different things when he said empire as a way of life. On page 81 he starts talking about how there are many ways to define it. What I got out of this is that it is a combination of patterns of thought and action, that as it becomes habitual and institutionalized it defines the thrust and character of a culture and society and affects our country in a very significant way.(Rothenberg pg.81) The empire as a territory and as activities dominated economically, politically, and psychologically by a superior power. (Rothenberg pg.82)


 * He distinguishes between imperialism and colonialism by giving us both definitions and explaining the differences between them. Colonialism means: large scale transfer and subsequent rule of people from (or under the control of the imperial metropolis to an area previously occupied, or populated by people who cannot resist the invasion and are therefore conquered or destroyed. Imperialism: the loss of sovereignty-control-over essential issues and decisions by a largely agricultural society to an industrial metropolis. Superior economic power subjects an inferior political economy to its own preferences. (Rothenberg pg.82-83)

Imperialism seems to be what has evolved the most dramatically over time. Imperialism at the beginning of time was such a physical and apparent domination. The rulers of the world were the face of their army, on the battle fields and falling with their men. You don’t see the people who are in charge of the wealthiest countries in the world physically fighting for their people; they add a face to a document. Imperialism in modern society seems to be about who has the most control without looking like they are taking over. No longer is it about occupying a country, it’s now about supporting regimes to do dirty work in order to keep your own hands clean. It’s about politics and big government, money and material wealth. Evidence of power that is offered to the public is scarce, what and who people think are running things around the world are just the outer rings to the web of power in the world. These readings have expanded my thoughts and helped me to realize what it is that really runs things and that who we might think is calling the shots may in fact not be.

References: Williams, W.A. (1980). Empire as a Way of Life. In P.S. Rothenberg (Ed.), //Beyond Borders:Thinking Critically About Global Issues// (pp. 81-88 inclusive). New York: Worth Publishers. Williams,W.A(1980).Empire as a Way of life. In P.S. Rothenberg (Ed), Beyond Borders: Thinking critically about Global Issues(pp.81-83)
 * Question 3: (Taylor's Question)**


 * 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.**

The idea that ‘third-world’ countries can ‘catch-up’ is a myth, explained by Mies (Mies & Shiva, 1993), for the reason that there would be no catching up at all if it were possible. In the time that it would take an underdeveloped nation to ‘catch-up’ to a modern metropolis, the metropolis would be two steps ahead in developing the next big thing, “What today was the TV is tomorrow the colour TV,... then the… ‘computer generation’ and even later artificial intelligence machines…” (Mies &Shiva, 1993). The North’s idea that having material belongings makes for a better living is exactly what “legitimizes the constant growth and accumulation” of goods. These goods are then made in ‘third-world’ countries because of the cheap labor, emphasizing again the dominance of the colonial structure. These products, made elsewhere, cannot be ‘made in the USA’ for a simple reason, “immediate end to unlimited growth would be inevitable.” (Mies &S Shiva, 1993). They would not be a metropolis if there were no one beneath. The North seems to have a “schizophrenic” (Mies & Shiva) way of looking at what they are doing to the world. People ignore the fact that we live in a limited-resource world and think that science will have a cure to the problems they create. These problems get ignored by the people who have the most influence because of the lack of confidence they have in their campaign.

This is also considered out of reach due to the ever changing way of life we are all seeing throughout the world. The lack of globalization can create friction and tension among the cultures which cannot stimulate growth into the industrialized society which we see fit which will make them grow in ways that we have grown.

Third world countries will be what they are, third world countries. It is impossible for them to "catch up." For a third world country to catch up to a country like America, America would have to have a major collapse. That will not be happening anytime soon. The reason America will stay ahead of third world countries, is because we possess the resources that others lack, and we can get things done cheaper by paying these third world countries to do our jobs so American can make profit and be the greatest country ever. I found something really interesting that shows me that third world countries will not catch up anytime soon. Here is the article, [].

Adding to what was said above America has its ways of getting the resources that it lacks from the third world countries that have them that’s why those third world countries will never be able to catch up to America. For example what we talked about in class of the certain mineral that smart phones contains and the dangers of getting those minerals just so that we can have the latest technology. Third world countries will always have to do America’s dirty work. Mies, M., & Shiva, V. (1993). The myth of catching-up development. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), //Beyond Borders: Thinking Critically About Global Issues // (pp. 150-157 inclusive). New York: Worth Publishers


 * Question: 4 (Kristina's Question)**


 * 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**

Eurocentrism is the practice of viewing the world from a European perspective and with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of European culture. The term Eurocentrism was coined during the period of decolonization in the late 20th century.

Amin (1989) mentions eurocentrism is easy to grasp but very difficult to define. There are many ways and/or areas this is expressed in for example: daily relationships between individuals, views in concerning today's society as well as our culture individually or as a whole, etc. while these are being expressed it can lead to violence such as racism. Amin then lists common ideas and opinions that are transmitted by the median order to summarize the Eurocentric vision (admin)

Glenn (2008) makes the claim that “whiteness” is a legacy of colonialism because there are people who are trying to change or “lighten” the appearance of their skin to become more acceptable to society. This coincides with the women of early colonialism because the only “colored” women were slaves or of Indian culture and the women with power, respect, and attractiveness were white women. This is still going on around the world today as Glenn explains in the text (Chapter 6 Reading 21 pages 165 to 180).

I believe that the globalization of cultures is moving in the direction to westernizing their own cultures. There are many fads that pop up here in the United States that move across the ocean that will start trends in other countries and many other cultures. For example we have plenty American pop artists that sell their albums overseas which create their own following which can be considered a culture which came from the United States.

I believe that there is no evidence that a global culture unless you count that everyone is trending in the way that we are trending. Americanism is what this is called we have an unstoppable pop culture which is addictive amongst teens throughout the world. There are many cultures around the world but all of them seem to be moving towards an more American theme.

The idea of 'Whiteness' can be defined as partaking in the same values and beliefs as a white man. If it was not their culture, their values, their way of living, a bar would not be set for the rest of the world to follow. European living seems to be the highest living standards set.The West looks at the rest of the world for what it is, and places judgement based on what it may appear as, and then places you in a 'class' of society.

The whole lightening of the skin issue where the lighter the skin color you have, the more appealing, attractive, young, rejuvenated, superior you are. People with light skin are viewed as people in the power. The darker skin color you had meant that you were out in the fields and working in the hot sun. Multinational cosmetic and Pharmaceutical firms are pushing for "lightening skin." It is a global phenomenon.. Personally the whole lightening of the skin is unhealthy, but it plastered everywhere you look. New creams, new gels, new lotions, age defying, wrinkle free, etc. The things people do to "fit in" will never go away so the market will always be in high demand.

Eurocentrism seems to be something that is difficult to follow closely, but in retrospect is possible to define. I would agree that ‘globalization of culture’ is 100 percent moving in one direction, it’s being westernized. Amin says it perfectly, “…the European West has little to learn from others.” The West pays very little attention to the way things are done in the East and South, they simply believe they have, for their own purposes, the best way of doing things. There’s no argument when it comes to technology, science, material wealth, and cheap efficiency that we seem to have things **almost** figured out. One small example would be ‘McDonald's’, where in the world can you go and not find one? When it comes to medicine, where do people in the medical field want to end up? In the West. Other societies, besides the West, seem to be so far behind that the next best place they could even achieve would only be the minimum standard we have set. As Amin states, “…it becomes impossible to contemplate any other future for the world that its progressive Europeanization.”

There are many ways that show there are clashes in the civilizations around the world. We see more people around the world “sporting” their favorite NBA or NFL team’s jerseys across the world. This is one way that the American culture has mixed with all the cultures around the world. Let’s take the fast food industry here in America for example McDonalds is on a global market and making its presence felt everywhere. They promote not so healthy foods and thus creates controversy among the world. We lead a fast life style where fast food has been incorporated into a majority part of our lives and this is starting to take it toll on the global market making us Americans looked down upon.

There are many ways that Americans influence different countries whether it is with fashion, food, or just education. We see a lot of that in Mexico for example I remember going to Mexico and seeing how my cousins dressed and then going back and seeing a big difference when I returned it was as if I was their fashion teacher. Now you also see a lot of the fast food restaurants that we have here over there and people are not cooking as much as they were because they are getting our American customs. We are also a big influence in their education because I have noticed that many of my cousins have learned how to speak English they might not have the pronunciation that I have but at least if they were to live here then can get by. So I do think that the United States has become one of the biggest influences not just to Mexico but globally.

References: Rothenberg, Paula S. //Beyond Borders: Thinking Critically about Global Issues//. New York: Worth, 2006. (Part 2, section 3 pages 97-100) Eitzen, D. Stanley., and Zinn Maxine. Baca. (2012) //Globalization: The Transformation of Social Worlds//. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, (Chapter 6, Pages 145-184)


 * Question 5 (Daniel's Question)**


 * Jan Pettman says "within conventional histories of colonialism, woman are largely absent? How does her attempt to reclaim women's history enrich, complicate and transform our understanding of colonialism? using current examples from the economic, political and cultural dimensions of globalization, how are women still absent or misrepresented in globalization? Provide some examples.**

First we must know what is colonialism. Colonialism is defined as "the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker peoples or areas During colonization, women were largely absent, they had no rights or no "say so" for any circumstances. Woman had it rough back then and even today. Pettman states that women were absent and belong in the home. They were stereotyped and were basically told what to do by men. Women back during colonialism stayed home, lived a domestic life. In today's world I see women used wrong in television, radio, movies, there is a saying in today's world and it is "sex sells." Here is an example of how women are being used for their bodies and not their brains. 

An example of how women still absent or misrepresented in globalization. (in media/technology) Mass media is perhaps the most powerful tool in the world for creating, changing or perpetuating society’s ideas about an issue or group of people. Because the majority of media outlets are owned by corporations dominated by white heterosexual men, many minorities are portrayed in ways that perpetuate negative stereotypes, if they are portrayed at all. The majority of women shown as subjects of news stories played very “feminine” roles: teachers, wives, mothers and sisters. Showing women as weak and men beside them as strong reemphasizes America’s stereotypes of hetero-sexism and the inferiority of women

In the media women are portrayed as if they are vulnerable and that they still need the men to care for them. For example this image that I post here is one of the biggest controversies that was going on last year because if you take a look at the cover of the magazine Lebron James is being portrayed as if he is King Kong saving the poor vulnerable girl, just as the cover of an old King Kong movie. []

The misinterpretation of woman in politics today is exceedingly sad. Woman account for the majority of the population in the entire world and yet there is an astoundingly low number of woman in the world’s politics. The woman who Rush Limbaugh has attacked, Sandra Fluke, has started her own campaign towards the issue of contraception. If she had lobbied her idea and had a man represent her cause would he also be called a "slut"? http://youtu.be/JOUdq2TQRJM

At the beginning of colonialism women of color were scarce making the white women more powerful in American culture. With that said today women are still trying to put themselves in a more powerful position by whitening or lightening their own skin. This will give the appearance that they are something they are not. Women have just been lately been getting more and more rights and more power but is this a false image as women are still lightening their own skin to get ahead in life.