Globalization

[pegasus]

"NAFTA Super Highway" is a misnomer, all the roads already exists, I35, I29, and I94. This is an infrastructure improvement project, mostly to improve roads in the middle of the country, but also to improve Detroit-Canada connections. Also Alberta, particularly Calgary area is booming right now due to the tar sands investment, so a lot of and material will be flowing in. Hence the I94 improvements.

What are your concerns about it?

The reason I looked closely at this gov website was because the Canadian Govt released publications this week. One of the online news blogs described the documentation. I can't post the website because it is one TS has said he doesn't like.

I may be misreading the SPP website but it seems very similar to the European Union. I only listed one piece of this thing, the transportation improvements.

Some of the items I see in the EU that appear to be part of this SSP:
Agriculture, Consumers, Economic and Monetary, Public Health, Transport, Energy, Food Safety, Environment, Fisheries and Maritime Affairs....

I started reading one of the PDF's on trade law. I am not a lawyer and muddle my way through legal-eze. After reading the document I wondered what affect it would have on the lumber industry, for example.

The prosperity agenda: " Lower costs for North American businesses, producers, and consumers and maximize trade in goods and services across our borders by striving to ensure compatibility of regulations and standards and eliminating redundant testing and certification requirements." Does this mean we change our FDA standards? For example, the citrus industry. Oranges from FL have to adhere to different standards than oranges from outside the USA. We have tougher pesticide control for example.

On the surface the function of the SPP appears to be opening borders and standardizing laws. I didn't check any of the security proposals, but after living in Canada for 15 years, I really doubt they will ever change their open door policy on immigration.

.02

[Ret10Echo]

This is a bit lengthy and some is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but sometimes the perceptions from outside our borders are interesting.


Washington diary: Land of ideas
By Matt Frei
BBC News, Washington



I am happy to report to you that the Oxford Union, in its infinite wisdom, has allowed America to continue existing.

After a raucous debate in front of a packed house, the motion - "this House regrets the Founding of America" - was overwhelmingly squashed.

My colleague Jonah Goldberg, from the National Review, made a witty and punchy case for the birthright of America, lambasting the Union for a motion that "sounded like a bad joke".

Peter Rodman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, entered the fray with patrician aplomb and, for what it's worth, this was some of my contribution to joust for the country where I keep my toothbrush and pay my taxes:

It is very easy to find Americans who disagree with its current direction. But you'll be hard pressed to come across those who regret its very existence in a fit of collective self-annihilation. The confusion of one with the other strikes me as the fundamental flaw of this motion.

Let's say you didn't need to regret the founding of America, because it had never been founded. How different might our lives look? We would not be listening to George Bush's fluent Texan. We would never have had the benefit of Donald Rumsfeld one-liners or clogged our arteries on a Big Mac.

But what music would we be listening to on our iPods? Would it be German marching songs or Russian ballads? Would we even have an iPod?

Yes, the beloved iPod was designed by a British citizen, Jonathan Ive, a son of Chingford, Essex. But would his design have changed the world of music if it hadn't been for Apple, an American company, based in Cupertino, California?

Freedom to dream

So much for iPods... what about ideas? How different would the world be without the Bill of Rights? What about Thomas Jefferson?


The Declaration of Independence was the quintessential treatise of self-determination. If America had never been founded it would have remained unwritten. And who can imagine life without the Dumb Waiter, another Jefferson innovation?

The list goes on and on (and I apologise for any omissions): Thomas Edison, who had 1,093 patents for inventions in his name; Henry Ford; the Wright brothers; Bill Gates; the Boeing corporation; Desperate Housewives; The Sopranos and, of course, SpongeBob SquarePants.

As a TV correspondent, I would be out of a job. The television was invented over decades by a German, a Brit and a Russian but their ideas all came together in the middle of Middle America.

The United States created an environment in which inventive minds had access to easy credit, a willing market and the freedom to dream and create without fear of prosecution or recrimination.

As the writer and poet John Ciardi put it: "The Constitution gives every American the inalienable right to make a damn fool of himself"!

Europe's offspring

If we regret the founding of the US we regret a thoroughly European creation. If George III hadn't been as mad as a hatter, if the Redcoats had been more in touch with the feelings of His Majesty's subjects in the colonies, the English colony of Jamestown might never have given way to Yorktown, where 174 years later the English crown was finally defeated in the War of Independence.


There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America
Bill Clinton

To be against the founding of America is not to be original but to continue a long line of misguided bigots who always resented the birth of the US. In the late 18th Century, the eminent Dutch scientist Cornelius De Pauw wrote that everything from America was "either degenerate or monstrous". He was considered the foremost expert on the New World of his time and, like many critics of America, he never went there once.

Then there's the Oscar Wilde quip, plagiarised by former French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau: "America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilisation". Anti-Americanism is as old as America and it continues to miss the point.

America did not come from nowhere. It was an offspring of Europe, the step-child of a corrupt, moribund post-feudal system. America encapsulated the principles of the Enlightenment - Liberty, Equality, Fraternity - wrapped them in the pursuit of happiness, underpinned them with an inalienable right and turned an IDEA into a country.

It took the missteps of the French and the English revolutions and it made them work.

Yes, there were terrible mistakes - the gross hypocrisy of slavery, segregation and McCarthyism, to name a few. But America found and keeps finding the solutions to its mistakes. It is a giant, rolling social experiment in constant pursuit of self-correction. As Bill Clinton once said: "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."

In America the idea was ragged, rough and imperfect but it kept growing, it kept evolving and, if this isn't a vote of confidence, it kept attracting people, millions of them - Dutch pilgrims, Russian Jews, persecuted Egyptians, hungry Mexicans, uprooted Kurds, homeless Armenians, unloved and underpaid British film stars, now luxuriating in Hollywood. Ask them if they regret the founding of America!

Real promise

The US is a nation built not on ethnicity, not on religion, not even on history but on an idea.


Not only does this make America different, I would argue it also makes it ideally suited for the 21st Century. We live in a globalised world in which national boundaries are less and less relevant and the citizenship of ideas is more and more defining.

Al-Qaeda also strives for a world without borders, a trans-national entity based on ideas, which a majority of Muslims find as unpalatable as we do. So, ask yourself and be honest: where would you rather live - the Caliphate or California?

We Europeans created America and to regret this is to engage in a colossal act of self-denial verging on self-mutilation. We have a stake in its survival and its success and we ought to nurture it, not bring it to its knees or delight in its misfortunes. We can criticise its leaders without regretting its existence.

The reality of America may be vexing, frustrating, infuriating and puzzling but its promise is no less real and, given the right voice, should be no less inspiring.

Guantanamo Bay, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and yes, so many aspects of the war in Iraq, were big mistakes. But these are aspects of current foreign policy, not part of the nation's DNA. They are lamented as much inside the US as outside. And that too speaks for America!

To quote the Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington: "America is not a lie; it is a disappointment." But what is worse than being disappointed? It is not even to know what you're missing.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6613861.stm

Published: 2007/05/02 11:40:46 GMT

© BBC MMVII

[WhiskeyBoarder]

I have a question as pertains to this thread. I must admit, though, in my haste to post between classes I did not read this entire discussion. However, from the thread’s development, I think that the following situation has not been addressed.

I am currently taking an upper level class entitled, in fact, “Globalization.” One of the theories suggested as the outcome of globalization termed “globality,” will be cultures that are very similar to every other culture. This is to say that the world would be, in effect, Americanized. Of course, there are skeptics who view this outcome as highly unlikely for various reasons.

However, for discussion’s sake, let’s consider that in the near future, the world does start to look drastically Western; languages begin to disappear, English is adopted more then it already is and values begin to mimic those more recognizable to Westerners.

What effect does this outcome have on the CMF of Special Forces? Surely, there would have to be drastic alterations made to a profession that prides itself on its unmatched knowledge of foreign cultures. If cultures stop being so foreign, how does SF continue to perform in ways “special;” that is to say, unconventional?

Any thoughts?

Thank you.

[x-factor]

Even if a homogenization of world cultures does occur (which I think is preposterous), it would not happen overnight. You're talking about a process that would occur over the course of at least a century, probably several.

Given that long a time frame and all the other factors that come into the equation over that long period, I don't think there's any way to answer your question. It'd be hard enough to speculate on what militaries in general will look like in a hundred years...much less a specific kind of specialized unit in an even longer period.

The idea of special units (specifically selected, highly trained, reliant on unconventional tactics, and devoted to missions of extraordinary impact) will almost certainly continue as long as humans maintain armed forces, but the specifics will always be dependent on context. I don't think you can get much more specific than that.

[Sionnach]

....

However, for discussion’s sake, let’s consider that in the near future, the world does start to look drastically Western; languages begin to disappear, English is adopted more then it already is and values begin to mimic those more recognizable to Westerners.

....

Any thoughts?



Ever seen Firefly? I think Josh Whedon has as good a guess as any on the culture of the VERY distant future. As far as your concerns of the world domination of Western culture, I wouldn't count on English, or any other language replacing the world's languages any time soon. Remember, Gaeilge is still spoken in Ireland even though the English occupied it for around 500 years.

[The Reaper]

I have a question as pertains to this thread. I must admit, though, in my haste to post between classes I did not read this entire discussion. However, from the thread’s development, I think that the following situation has not been addressed.

I am currently taking an upper level class entitled, in fact, “Globalization.” One of the theories suggested as the outcome of globalization termed “globality,” will be cultures that are very similar to every other culture. This is to say that the world would be, in effect, Americanized. Of course, there are skeptics who view this outcome as highly unlikely for various reasons.

However, for discussion’s sake, let’s consider that in the near future, the world does start to look drastically Western; languages begin to disappear, English is adopted more then it already is and values begin to mimic those more recognizable to Westerners.

What effect does this outcome have on the CMF of Special Forces? Surely, there would have to be drastic alterations made to a profession that prides itself on its unmatched knowledge of foreign cultures. If cultures stop being so foreign, how does SF continue to perform in ways “special;” that is to say, unconventional?

Any thoughts?

Thank you.

I think the premise is preposterous.

The world seems to be moving towards a Balkanization of tribes rather than a globalization. The globalization theory was popular 10-20 years ago. What happened to the Soviet Union? I would say that the current situation in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa pretty much destroys this little illusion, wouldn't you?

The fact that someone drinks Coke, eats at McDonald's, smokes Marlboros, and watches CNN does not mean that they want to be part of a global United States. It means that they enjoy the products, or have bought into the marketing. The person doing it could be a jihadi.

TR

[x-factor]

There is in fact a McDonalds in Mecca. The halal nuggets pioneered there were recently introduced at restraunts in the Arab communities of Detroit.

Comedian Aron Kader (half Palestinian, half Mormon if you can believe that) does a great bit about exactly the same point TR just made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCF-B1Iz9zs&mode=related&search=

[Ret10Echo]

I am currently taking an upper level class entitled, in fact, “Globalization.” One of the theories suggested as the outcome of globalization termed “globality,” will be cultures that are very similar to every other culture. This is to say that the world would be, in effect, Americanized. Of course, there are skeptics who view this outcome as highly unlikely for various reasons.

However, for discussion’s sake, let’s consider that in the near future, the world does start to look drastically Western; languages begin to disappear, English is adopted more then it already is and values begin to mimic those more recognizable to Westerners.

I challenge you to support this premise.

1. The Soviet Union sought to create such a society, but immediately after the break-up the individual states and regions returned to their native dialect and distanced themselves from all things Soviet. This continues in the Baltic states as they seek to remove signs of the Soviet occupation. This shift from a "globality" occured in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia in several places (Bosnia, Albania, Montenegro, Slovenia....). Czechoslovakia reverted to the Czech Republic and Slovakia....

2. Travel through Europe. Despite the close proximity of the nations there are distinct cultural differences. As far as language goes Germany is a great example of how there are multiple dialects spoken within the country itself as you travel from North to South.

3. Americanization??? if the adoption of American-style products is the basis for that then it would that indicate that the U.S. is becoming Chinese due to the amount of products made in China we purchase and use.

What effect does this outcome have on the CMF of Special Forces? Surely, there would have to be drastic alterations made to a profession that prides itself on its unmatched knowledge of foreign cultures. If cultures stop being so foreign, how does SF continue to perform in ways “special;” that is to say, unconventional?

Any thoughts?

Thank you.

Over time, cultural differences will become more distinct.

Adjustments made: As with the fall of the Soviets and the example I gave concerning the language shift. Many places that spoke Russian during that period reverted back to Ukrainian, Belorussian etc etc...and would be offended if you used Russina....6 months of language Gulag in the tank...but the basis for expansion into Serbo-Croat and the others is much easier with the basics down. Lift and Shift...the mission continues...that's why there is a selection process.

[WhiskeyBoarder]

Gentlemen,

I want to thank you for your responses. It was refreshing to hear views outside of those proposed in academia. Sometimes, as a student (and I am sure you know this very well), I am bombarded with so many loaded facts that is difficult to form independent conclusions.

Given that many of you have experienced developing cultures in more direct ways than any of these scholars from whose work I read, I am going to default to the standing conclusions drawn here: the result of globalization is NOT a world that at every corner looks completely Western.

Thanks for opening my eyes and bringing up an opposing opinion to those taught at the university.

However, I do want to respond to Ret10Echo. He challenged me to support my premise. In fairness, I just want you to see that I am, in fact, presenting a premise that is delivered to us in class. So I present these tidbits from Manfred B. Steger in his “Very Short Introduction to Globalization,” as published by the Oxford Press:



…Still another thesis emphasizes the power of the Anglo-American culture industry to make English the global lingua franca of the 21st century….

…In the 16th century, 7 million people used English as their mother tongue. By the 1990s, this number had swollen to over 350 million native speakers, with 400 million more using English as a second language…

…Today, more then 80% of the content posted on the Internet is in English…

…Given the current rate of decline, some linguists predict that 50-90% of the currently existing languages will have disappeared by the end of the 21st century…


…Almost half of the world’s growing population of foreign students are enrolled at institutions in Anglo-American countries…

(Pages 83-84)




Again, I appreciate your feedback. I truly feel that this forum often works to “round out” my education. Thank you.

[Ret10Echo]

…Still another thesis emphasizes the power of the Anglo-American culture industry to make English the global lingua franca of the 21st century….

…In the 16th century, 7 million people used English as their mother tongue. By the 1990s, this number had swollen to over 350 million native speakers, with 400 million more using English as a second language…

…Today, more then 80% of the content posted on the Internet is in English…

…Given the current rate of decline, some linguists predict that 50-90% of the currently existing languages will have disappeared by the end of the 21st century…


…Almost half of the world’s growing population of foreign students are enrolled at institutions in Anglo-American countries…

(Pages 83-84)



I understand the environment in which you operate so do not take my comments as a personal attack...it's much like being in a philosophy class that uses a textbook authored by the professor. You adapt to the environment. The take-away you have already, never confuse the so-called facts with reality

I'm no Rhodes Scholar, but just some observations:

I disagree with the connection between technology, business and culture. Foreign students enroll in the U.S. probably because of the prolific number of colleges and universities in the Anglo-American countries. Realistically, outside of occasional semesters, I seriously doubt most American students would be interested in attending university in the Middle East or Asia...Likewise, I would imagine "foreign" students might find U.S. institutions quite attractive given the living conditions etc.


I would also imagine that much of the statistics concerning the use of the English language would be closely related to the fact that England was a world power and in the midst of building their empire.:rolleyes:


I am not sure what the rate of growth that Spanish has in the United States and how often one finds it NOT the primary language spoken in the home, but I seem to come across this issue more and more often.

People adapt to technology and the standards. If the internet had made it's debut in Phrance, then I imagine the story would be different. Al Gore decided it should be in English so there you have it.:D

.

[x-factor]

I'd like to comment specifically on the role of the Internet in globalization and how it pertains to the cultural homogenization we're talking about.

Many have operated on the assumption that the Internet is a singe community where everyone interacts in the same pool and so by extension the Internet acts as an agent of homogenization. This could not be more wrong. While its true that the Internet provides people all over the world access to certain central information resources (Google, Wikipedia, etc), the discussion taking place on the Internet serves far more to reinforce existing identities (or even to create new ones) than to consolidate them into a "globalized" way of thinking.

One silly example and then one serious example.

Look at high school. For any number of reasons, the cool kids, the trendsetters, whatever you want to call them have a crushing influence on the average high school kid. Once you get to high school, you are expected to sublimate whatever geeky goofball hobbies you had as a kid in favor of "cool" things: popular music, sports, chicks, whatever. As a matter of social survival, geeks are driven from spending all their recreational time memorizing Tolkien trivia (or whatever other arcana strikes their fancy) to trying to conform. Now, with the internet, geeks are not as susceptible to that social pressure because when they get home from school they can easily seek out other geeks (wherever they may be) and indulge in talk of hobbits, orcs, and whatever else. Suddenly, being "cool" is not as pressing a need because they've found social acceptance somewhere else.

Now consider Islam. The unchallenged center of Islam since its inception has been the local mosque. A young disgruntled man who found himself drawn to the teachings of Ibn Tamiyah would still have to interact with people of other leanings at his local mosque. In this way the community had some kind of influence or even control over his opinion. Today? That young man can go to a moderate mosque to fulfill his social obligations, but when he gets home he can pull up any of a thousand extremist bulletin boards and instantly be united with other extremists around the world. People who think like him and will support, reinforce, and nurture his opinions. He doesn't have to travel to another village to seek out a specific school of theology. He doesn't have to pack up and move to Afghanistan like in the 1980s. He can withdraw from the societal mainstream and easily immerse himself in extremism right from the comfort of his own home.

Point being, the technology that so many hail as "globalizing" empowers the individual to resist homogenization just as much, if not more, as it exposes him to homogenizing influences.

[Peregrino]

I'd like to comment specifically on the role of the Internet in globalization and how it pertains to the cultural homogenization we're talking about.
..........
Point being, the technology that so many hail as "globalizing" empowers the individual to resist homogenization just as much, if not more, as it exposes him to homogenizing influences.

I am occasionally reminded that restraint has its virtues. Maybe there was a good reason I didn't delete you when first tempted. :p Peregrino

[x-factor]

Adapt, overcome, always maintain a good sense of humor.

[smp52]

Overall, I think English might be spreading around the world plenty, but none of these people seem to be losing their native languages because of it. On the contrary, English just becomes an additional skill it seems (at least as far as those students were concerned).

You'd be surprised as to how English has a creeping influence in foreign languages. It starts from basic words, and as time goes by, more and more English words creep into the language to the point that some 'native' words are rarely spoken. Now, they may sound different with a local accent, but it's still an English word.

Language and culture generally adapt over generations. IMHO the bottom line is about communicating in whatever medium you can get your message out in, and the other party understanding it. With immigrants in the United States, the native languages tend to fade over 2-3 generations. Immigrants generally speak the language. Their kids generally understand much of it and can speak it well enough to communicate, but it sounds funny. Their kids generally won't speak a lick of it.

I had a recent conversation with a friend, who is of Bengali background (West Bengal, India). She was mentioning how some of her cousins spoke better English than the local Bengali language. My mother's brother and sister, both grew up in Bombay, and speak far better English than mother tongue of Gujarati. Granted, as mentioned earlier, British colonial influence resulted in the language being used in many former colonies. A few countries that forced English out, like Malaysia, probably had an older generation that spoke better English than their kids. The same thing happened in the Indian state of Gujarat where the older colonial era generation spoke better English. My grandfather (mother's father) spoke it flawlessly with absolute mastery of it. My mother, was educated in a Gujarati medium school (primarly language of instruction) and wasn't all that good at it. I guess places like these get the message with globalization that it matters for business and better economic opportunities.

As long as business and trade is conducted in English, it will continue to be used. More often than not, English words slowly enter foreign languages, while the reverse has happened, it's not as prolific. Nothing scientific, merely my experience...

I am more concerned about an America that looks mostly Spanish-speaking in the future and a Europe that is mostly Muslim.

Question is, even with a larger spanish speaking population, will we decide to attract and develop our scientific/mathematical skill sets? Will the United States evolve into an educated bilingual society that maitains English, but adds spanish as another fluent language, or devolve into a largely segregated society of an undereducated spanish speaking population and educated upper class, english population with a declining birth rate? A bilingual, trilingual, or whatever nation isn't the problem. Having people uneducated and only speak one language is. Education is FUNdamental :)

[Ret10Echo]

This is a little plagarism, but brings about my point and reinfoces some of the other points made:

In the 5th century BC, Latin was just one of many Italic languages spoken in central Italy. Latin was the language of the area known as Latium (modern Lazio), and Rome was one of the towns of Latium. The earliest known inscriptions in Latin date from the 6th century BC and were written using an alphabet adapted from the Etruscan alphabet.

Rome gradually expanded its influence over other parts of Italy and then over other parts of Europe. Eventually the Roman Empire stretched across a wide swathe of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Latin was used throughout the empire as the language of law, administration and increasingly as the language of everyday life. Literacy was common among Roman citizens and the works of great Latin authors were read by many.


So what of Latin now?

IMO, English has become what it is in the world because of America's strength following immediately behind the colonial power of England. If (and when) that strength declines so goes the language. People adjust in order to get along. As the point was made concerning the person in India, the requirement to speak English in order to improve one's position became apparent so people adjust to the demand of the market. Technology requires English much like Latin is used in legal, medical and other scientific terminology because those terms were developed while that language was that of the power of the time.

We are globalized at the high, 50,000 foot level. Individual people can be as isolationist as they desire.

[smp52]

This is a little plagarism, but brings about my point and reinfoces some of the other points made:

In the 5th century BC, Latin was just one of many Italic languages spoken in central Italy. Latin was the language of the area known as Latium (modern Lazio), and Rome was one of the towns of Latium. The earliest known inscriptions in Latin date from the 6th century BC and were written using an alphabet adapted from the Etruscan alphabet.

Rome gradually expanded its influence over other parts of Italy and then over other parts of Europe. Eventually the Roman Empire stretched across a wide swathe of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Latin was used throughout the empire as the language of law, administration and increasingly as the language of everyday life. Literacy was common among Roman citizens and the works of great Latin authors were read by many.


So what of Latin now?

IMO, English has become what it is in the world because of America's strength following immediately behind the colonial power of England. If (and when) that strength declines so goes the language. People adjust in order to get along. As the point was made concerning the person in India, the requirement to speak English in order to improve one's position became apparent so people adjust to the demand of the market. Technology requires English much like Latin is used in legal, medical and other scientific terminology because those terms were developed while that language was that of the power of the time.

We are globalized at the high, 50,000 foot level. Individual people can be as isolationist as they desire.

Good points. Economic power is definitely at the core of the market value for a particular language. English though, has had the most prolific expansion of any language worldwide due to global business models and British then American strength.