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.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The End of History?!
I found this article fascinating! I enjoy thinking about history and the future of mankind, so the idea that we are actually at the end of history in terms of ideology kind of hit me. I think Fukuyama is right when he says that liberal democracy is the ultimate type of government. It's important that Fukuyama states this is true only on the level of ideology and many countries might take a detour before getting there.
Fukuyama is right that in theory the leaders of every country know deep down that liberal democracy would be the best for people. The reason for not leading a country this way is corruption and greediness from the side of politicians and international pressure from superpowers.
To back up my statement that Fukuyama was right, I would bring up the Avant-Garde movements in arts from 1900 till 1950. These movements had often nothing in common, no united vision about the world or arts. Artists formed a whole variety of groups to try to find an explanation for the horrors of this era (starting with the WW I), but they couldn't find a single idea that would represent everyone's viewpoint equally. When Fukuyama said at the end of his article that the end of history means the decline of arts and theatre, I think he was right in the sense that it's hard to say anything new or groundbreaking nowadays that everyone agrees with. (I'm sorry if I bore you with this art thing, but I'm a Theatre major as well, so I could go on for hours...)
So, now that I sort of explained why I think Fukuyama was right, I'm going to try to explain why many countries don't work as liberal democracies. The reason: because we are human beings. As you said on class, there will be never total freedom and liberalism, because it would lead to anarchy. And people will always be greedy and politicians will probably appreciate money and power more than the happiness of people.
And, just one quick comment to back up my idea about superpowers orchestrating the world's political landscape. How come that the US was eager to occupy Iraq to "free the poor people" in the name of democracy, equality, freedom and human rights? (Even though 2 million Iraqis have fled the country so far and those refugees have to live now in even greater poverty in neighboring countries, not talking about the lack of schooling and health care.) And how came that no one invaded Zimbabwe during the elections in the summer?! Wasn't Mugabe jeopardizing human rights as well? Maybe because Zimbabwe is a poor country with no oil reserves, it means that there's no point in saving people's rights and lives... And just one last remark: isn't it interesting that US officials ended up giving advice to the Iraqi government on the oil deal when the reserves were opened up in the summer?
Fukuyama is right that in theory the leaders of every country know deep down that liberal democracy would be the best for people. The reason for not leading a country this way is corruption and greediness from the side of politicians and international pressure from superpowers.
To back up my statement that Fukuyama was right, I would bring up the Avant-Garde movements in arts from 1900 till 1950. These movements had often nothing in common, no united vision about the world or arts. Artists formed a whole variety of groups to try to find an explanation for the horrors of this era (starting with the WW I), but they couldn't find a single idea that would represent everyone's viewpoint equally. When Fukuyama said at the end of his article that the end of history means the decline of arts and theatre, I think he was right in the sense that it's hard to say anything new or groundbreaking nowadays that everyone agrees with. (I'm sorry if I bore you with this art thing, but I'm a Theatre major as well, so I could go on for hours...)
So, now that I sort of explained why I think Fukuyama was right, I'm going to try to explain why many countries don't work as liberal democracies. The reason: because we are human beings. As you said on class, there will be never total freedom and liberalism, because it would lead to anarchy. And people will always be greedy and politicians will probably appreciate money and power more than the happiness of people.
And, just one quick comment to back up my idea about superpowers orchestrating the world's political landscape. How come that the US was eager to occupy Iraq to "free the poor people" in the name of democracy, equality, freedom and human rights? (Even though 2 million Iraqis have fled the country so far and those refugees have to live now in even greater poverty in neighboring countries, not talking about the lack of schooling and health care.) And how came that no one invaded Zimbabwe during the elections in the summer?! Wasn't Mugabe jeopardizing human rights as well? Maybe because Zimbabwe is a poor country with no oil reserves, it means that there's no point in saving people's rights and lives... And just one last remark: isn't it interesting that US officials ended up giving advice to the Iraqi government on the oil deal when the reserves were opened up in the summer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)