“Oh the times
they are a-changin'.” Bob Dylan sang this in the year 1964, a notch in the
decade of social unrest known as the 1960’s. Though Dylan wrote the song as an
anthem for the civil rights movement, his words are unspecific enough to
transcend his intended meaning and cause people to create new interpretations,
which attributes to his talent as a songwriter. Times have indeed changed
since the 60’s. The collapse of the Soviet Union, 9/11, and the election of
Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States are just a few major events
that have occurred within the last fifty years that would have been
inconceivable in Dylan’s time. But there is an underlying theme that connects
these three pieces of history: globalization. Though its roots stretch back to
the First World War, the impact of globalization on the Earth became noticeable
during the formative years of the Information Age. As technology advanced,
connections between nations became stronger, leading to more efficient trade,
communication, and development as well as the global mixing of cultures.
Because of globalization, democracy clashed with communism and dismantled the
Former Soviet Union, terrorists hijacked American planes and crashed them into
major U.S. buildings, and the first African-American was elected to the Oval
Office. It is apparent that there have been advantages and disadvantages to
globalizing our world. Many will argue that the negatives outweigh the
positives, but I will argue otherwise.
There are two major complaints about
globalization. The first criticism of globalization is that it has produced
tensions between cultures that wouldn’t have ever fought had they not known of
each other’s existences. The most notable example of this feuding is the
constant conflict between the United States and the Middle East. The first
U.S.-involvement in Middle Eastern battles dates back to 1988. Since then, the
U.S. has deployed its troops to the Middle East on several more occasions and
still retains active military presence in many Middle Eastern nations. In his
article-turned-book Jihad vs. McWorld, writer Benjamin Barber speaks of
the clash of two cultures – East and West - that cannot be synthesized and the
possible consequences that could ensue from it. It is a fair point to make; if
globalization never occurred, the U.S. and the Middle East would have continued
on existing singularly without any disturbance, and the current world stage
wouldn’t be anywhere near as bloody as it is today. If the U.S. and Middle East
had never met, the terrorists involved in 9/11 would have never even been on
those planes. That is the main inherent fault of globalization; though its
intention is to bring the world together, it also naturally produces even more
conflict than there was to begin with.
The second main complaint is that the
seemingly positive idea of cultures mingling with one another is actually
harmful to their identities. Many fear that if our world becomes globalized,
borders would be null and national individualism would be extinct. They believe
that we would become one giant Earth state with a single culture instead of a
planet that is comprised of hundreds of unique countries and cultures
(Essentially, the basis of Brave New World).
So was the world a better place when
the only people that we knew were our next-door neighbors? I completely
disagree.
Firstly, the idea that the Earth could ever become a World State is not a ridiculous idea. As the world grows and as nations become more intertwined, there may be a need for an efficient world government to regulate certain affairs. It's the basis of the establishment of any government except on a global scale. However, the idea of us becoming the feared dystopian society where everybody is just a number is a little too ridiculous for me to understand. For example, look at America, which is the smaller-scaled version of the world. If you look at America's history, as it became more and more of the melting pot that it's known as today, individual identities did not become suppressed but rather highlighted over time. Though our people are known collectively as Americans, there are still distinctions that people are unafraid to point out: whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc. The politically accurate term for an ethnic American involves adding "American" to the end of their ethnicity, but if you go up to anyone on the street and ask them what they are ethnically, they'd leave out the "American." I believe this shows that people still value their roots despite living in a society where all of the roots are intertwined.
True, there has been much more death
and destruction in the world since globalization began, but that is just a
natural result of this expansion as well as a combination of human pride and
resistance to change. Instead of thinking about the inevitable conflicts, we
should be thinking about all the good that has come from being connected with
the rest of the world. For instance:
- Trade has become simplified and made more efficient due to advancements in technology and communications, and nations have found business partners on the opposite end of the world, an infeasible idea in the pre-globalization era.
- The spreading of culture as a result of increased trade has arguably increased racial tolerance. Barack Obama’s election is an example of the change in America’s opinion of racial minorities from the pre-globalization era to our modern day. While racism has not been totally eradicated to this day, the idea of an African-American becoming the President of the United States was a laughable idea in pre-expansion times, showing that our nation has socially-evolved since those days.
- With the help of the United Nations and the leadership of a few prominent countries, the overall attitude of our world has become less bloodthirsty and more Samaritan. Many nations are actually willing to coexist and aid each other, as opposed to earlier times when nations had few allies and many enemies and when charity was a joke.
