I think globalization is an ongoing process regardless if it is good or evil - it's a fact and people will have to learn to live with it. Personally, I think globalization is good, as long as it doesn't explicitly destroy traditions. For example, I like buying products of the same brand in the US and at home, in the EU. I don't know what I would do without Philadelphia cream cheese or Wasa knäckerbrot, but being able to buy them both here and at home makes me feel good. I don't feel so lost here, because I see familiar things.
But I think this is only because I grew up with globalization. This needs to be a long process though: you can't go from a tradition-based society to a globalized society in a year. Countries that hold up globalization saying that it's bad for their country, actually make the situation worse, because they don't let their country go through a step by step process. Globalization will reach everyone because of the internet, I think this is not a question. The question is how countries react to it. Yes, globalization might be evil if you want to keep controlling people and don't want them to see what's going on in countries...
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Development Journalism
I disagree with this concept. I think it's just a way to disguise dictatorship and corruption.
Okay, let's assume that a perfect government proposes this type of journalism to really help and promote the society of the given developing country. People see that yes, we're making progress here and there, and wow, he have an amazing culture, and our leaders are great guys. Then, after 20 years they get to the point when they can actually switch to liberal democracy, and suddenly, people have to face a lot of new and strange things. For example:
1. they are going to be bombarded with foreign media messages that they have probably never seen before, how should they know which one to believe?
2. suddenly, the media starts to act as a watchdog, which might be confusing to people given that it's been helping the government so far...
3. if people have not been exposed to models of democracy in different cultures before, how can they judge whether their government is democratic, and how do they know whether democracy is good at all.
If a government wants to educate its people, the first thing they can do is allow free journalism. It's easy to govern people if they don't even know what they want. And I don't mean that the country should be flooded with American shows and Brazilian soap operas, obviously not. I mean that journalists should be allowed to report on other countries or their own country in a way that's objective and helpful to people.
Well, you might ask how do they know what is helpful. I would like to be a journalist primary because I believe that TRUTH is helpful. I have my own ideas about life, but I don't want to tell people what to think. I just want to show them the truth, no matter what it is. And then people can decide for themselves what they want to believe in. Every time I check CNN.com, I notice that the headlines already give a negative or positive connotation to stories. For example, every time there's something about Palin, it is presented in either a negative or sarcastic way. So how could people decide what they really think?
Okay, let's assume that a perfect government proposes this type of journalism to really help and promote the society of the given developing country. People see that yes, we're making progress here and there, and wow, he have an amazing culture, and our leaders are great guys. Then, after 20 years they get to the point when they can actually switch to liberal democracy, and suddenly, people have to face a lot of new and strange things. For example:
1. they are going to be bombarded with foreign media messages that they have probably never seen before, how should they know which one to believe?
2. suddenly, the media starts to act as a watchdog, which might be confusing to people given that it's been helping the government so far...
3. if people have not been exposed to models of democracy in different cultures before, how can they judge whether their government is democratic, and how do they know whether democracy is good at all.
If a government wants to educate its people, the first thing they can do is allow free journalism. It's easy to govern people if they don't even know what they want. And I don't mean that the country should be flooded with American shows and Brazilian soap operas, obviously not. I mean that journalists should be allowed to report on other countries or their own country in a way that's objective and helpful to people.
Well, you might ask how do they know what is helpful. I would like to be a journalist primary because I believe that TRUTH is helpful. I have my own ideas about life, but I don't want to tell people what to think. I just want to show them the truth, no matter what it is. And then people can decide for themselves what they want to believe in. Every time I check CNN.com, I notice that the headlines already give a negative or positive connotation to stories. For example, every time there's something about Palin, it is presented in either a negative or sarcastic way. So how could people decide what they really think?
Sunday, September 7, 2008
The future of humanity?
I think humankind will end up in the clash of civilizations, which I believe might lead to a war including every nation around the globe. As a Christian, I believe what is written in the book of Revelations, and for such a battle, as the one of Armageddon to happen, I think a global issue need to part nations and turn them against each other.
I know this might sound strange, but I think at the end two big powers will remain: Christian countries and non-Christian ones. You might ask why not Islam versus non-Islam. My answer is: because Christian countries seem to have very distinctive ideas and policies that many countries share, while other religions are maybe not that consistent and wide-spread. (I'm basically saying that most of the rich countries are Christian, which means that Christian-led countries have a sort of elite, leading position, which can be countered only if all the other countries form an alliance.)
As many countries are on the rise, at least China along with some its neighbors, I think people will become more and more aware of who they are spiritually. Soon, at least hopefully, every person will reach a point of relative well-being, after which religious questions will become a lot more important. I think the main difference will be whether one is a Christian or from another religion. Since religion is a very basic yet important part of civilizations, ideological differences will stem from it.
So, to sum up, I believe Huntington is right, because no matter how much we tolerate each other, meaning this both in everyday interactions and in international politics, there comes a point when a person's human rights are violated by tolerance. There comes a point when a person has to stand up for what he or she believes. And when this point comes, civilizations will collide.
I know this might sound strange, but I think at the end two big powers will remain: Christian countries and non-Christian ones. You might ask why not Islam versus non-Islam. My answer is: because Christian countries seem to have very distinctive ideas and policies that many countries share, while other religions are maybe not that consistent and wide-spread. (I'm basically saying that most of the rich countries are Christian, which means that Christian-led countries have a sort of elite, leading position, which can be countered only if all the other countries form an alliance.)
As many countries are on the rise, at least China along with some its neighbors, I think people will become more and more aware of who they are spiritually. Soon, at least hopefully, every person will reach a point of relative well-being, after which religious questions will become a lot more important. I think the main difference will be whether one is a Christian or from another religion. Since religion is a very basic yet important part of civilizations, ideological differences will stem from it.
So, to sum up, I believe Huntington is right, because no matter how much we tolerate each other, meaning this both in everyday interactions and in international politics, there comes a point when a person's human rights are violated by tolerance. There comes a point when a person has to stand up for what he or she believes. And when this point comes, civilizations will collide.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Clash of Civilizations
At class, we talked about in what context Huntington's arguments are true or whether they are true at all. Many claimed that while there might be such a thing as civilization, the idea that only different cultures will get into conflict is not true. For example Roxanne, the student from Ukraine said that she didn't believe Ukraine would join forces with Russia against the US, even though they might be part of one "civilization."
So, here is what I think (I didn't really have the opportunity to talk at class): so, I believe that Huntington's ideas might be true. I think that every civilization is starting or has already started to form alliances. For example, while Germany and France would go into war because of the Ruhr-Area, 50 years ago they realized that it's easier to join the EU and share it. Countries in the same area are starting to come together and cooperate, because it's good for everyone to live in peace with neighboring countries.
And about what Oksana said: Ukraine might not go into war against the US, but since major Russian pipelines are going through Ukraine, the leaders of both countries might think twice before they get into a conflict, because it could hurt both of them, (well, probably Ukraine more). I think 20-30 years from now, when the generation of the USSR-era will be replaced with the people growing up in the post-communist age, there will be whole different views on cultures and boundaries.
So, here is what I think (I didn't really have the opportunity to talk at class): so, I believe that Huntington's ideas might be true. I think that every civilization is starting or has already started to form alliances. For example, while Germany and France would go into war because of the Ruhr-Area, 50 years ago they realized that it's easier to join the EU and share it. Countries in the same area are starting to come together and cooperate, because it's good for everyone to live in peace with neighboring countries.
And about what Oksana said: Ukraine might not go into war against the US, but since major Russian pipelines are going through Ukraine, the leaders of both countries might think twice before they get into a conflict, because it could hurt both of them, (well, probably Ukraine more). I think 20-30 years from now, when the generation of the USSR-era will be replaced with the people growing up in the post-communist age, there will be whole different views on cultures and boundaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)