Globalization = Americanization?
Oh my my. It’s my last post for the term! So, let me sum this up with an interesting post regarding issues of health due to globalization since I’ve been entirely focusing on the environmental aspect of globalization. I stumbled upon an article, entitled ‘France at the Crossroads’, in this month’s Reader’s Digest. It basically discusses the high-cost of living in France, the taxes that inhibit its citizens from enjoying their own wealth.
However, this statement caught my attention: “We are the world’s number one consumers of tranquillizers and sleeping pills. People are afraid of the future, but they don’t take responsibility for themselves.” Personally, it caught me by surprise as I possess the perception that France is a very successful country, partly attributed to tourism. Truthfully, it never ever crossed my mind that citizens of such a powerful country might be suffering from a quite an alarming number of depression cases (& so I think).
The thing is, France is “… afraid of change, modernisation, free-market competition...”. We are able to witness how globalization has put immense pressure on such countries. These countries feel the need to follow their American counterparts, and if they don’t, they think they will crumble under the intense pressure globalization that they have to shoulder.
Personally, I think that the government should focus more on the welfare of its citizens - those that are suffering from the demands of the government & those that are in serious need of assistance. Does this article mean that France rather think about success of the country to the welfare of its citizens?
Basically, this reflects the negative portrayal of globalization - its impacts on our health. The tranquillizers and sleeping pills these people consume to enable them to cope with their utterly stressful life. I find it duly unfair that these people have to suffer.
Questions to ponder about: Why do we always have to listen to America? Why are we pressured to do things that we are unwilling to do? Why do we go to the extent of being ignorant of our health and our lifestyle? If the health of the citizens is bartered for globalization, I would dub France as a rather authoritative, insensitive and totalitarian country.(:
HEALTH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SUCCESS. IF WE MANAGE TO GAIN SUCCESS, YET SUFFER WITH HEALTH PROBLEMS, WHAT’S THE POINT?(:
Your concerned environmental & health expert,
Dinie. (till we meet again(((: )
9:40 PM
TV & GlobalizationAlright, now for my final entry on Cultural Globalisation. Yes, as you can see above, JJ's gonna bring you "TV and Globalization".
After learning about how media has affected us ever since the television surfaced in a place called Earth during one of my electives last year, I thought I might just share a couple of things before I start off. Before television came into existence, the newspapers were people's only medium for information to catch up on the latest news. Eversince the first television appeared for commercial purposes from the late 1940s, it has become a common household device in homes and institutions. The television has very much turned into a household necessity (I mean, what are you planning to put in place of the big corner you have in the living room?) and people nowadays are pretty much easily influenced by what they see on the television. Television has become key to the development of pop music, news, advertisement, sport and light entertainment, although I wouldn't really consider watching heavy blockbusters on Sundays very much 'light'. Alright, now, I shall tie this back to the main title for today's entry. TV has made us understand under countries more through travel programmes (this way we don't have to make long trips there just to understand their cultures) and TV has allowed the entertainment, telecommunication and IT sectors to build closer ties. That's why, in Singapore, you hear news about Hollywood Stars, Jackie Chan and the likes despite the fact that they aren't found in Singapore; People talk about Animes in America when it originated from Japan! Cultural exchange has no doubt been made easier for people who do not wish to or are not able to afford trips overseas to experience culture from other countries, just with a click of the remote control while in their living room couch. -JiaJin
12:05 AM
My reflection:
I am here again; here is Zhang Lin’s last post! Although we are not going to have everything after globalisation, at least we will have everything we need!
Globalisation ensures the freedom of flowing goods and services, it widened the products available. People around the world are more connected to each other. Products produced in one part of a country are available to the rest of the world. There is greater ease and speed of transportation for goods. Goods can be interchanged between countries, and there are no trade barriers between countries.
One powerful benefit of globalisation is the reduction of likelihood of war between developed nations. If there is trade between two countries, there is little percentage that the two countries will go to war; as it will cause great economically damage.
If we all support globalisation, we may need to buy nothing one day!
Posted by : Zhang Lin
5:21 PM
My reflection!
More and more people began to realize the benefits of globalisation; their daily lives are closely related to globalization and they gain a lot from globalisation.
Globalisation has created more jobs and income. Globalization provides free trade that resources move to more productive area. Thus employment will increase especially in manufacturing and services industries. The more productive countries could reach higher living standards, great increasing income and experience faster economic growth.
There is increasing varieties as a result of globalization. Globalisation promoted a path to widespread prosperity and protested, so people have greater access to products and are allowed to go to different countries to buy what they want. The increasing competition ensures the qualities of goods with lowest prices,
Globalisation allows partners to gain from specializing in the producing those goods and services they do best. Producers create goods they are comparatively skilled at.
Globalisation improves efficiency in resource allocation. For example: a dish of vegetables can mean nothing to those who have better choices of what to eat, but it can be the most surprising gift to those who are starving to death. Global trade delivers goods and services to those who value them most.
Globalisation benefits all!
posted by Zhang Lin
3:43 PM
(JiaJin) For my second last entry, I shall focus on one of my favourite topics of all time -- computer games!
With the advent of technology and the wide usage of the internet, from playing solo compter games (single-player) on Warcraft III, people have go on to play World of Warcraft, an online game with the background and plot heavily based on its Warcraft game series where players from all over the world come together (not literally, but online that is) to protect the world of Azeroth.
Over the years, with the aid of internet, communication between countries have been made more efficient for users all over the world. Online games have been on the rise in the recent years with titles such as 'Final Fantasy XI', 'MapleStory', 'Audition', 'Pangya' and 'Ragnarok Online' (oh, for Ragnaok Online fans, Ragnarok Online II has already released its closed beta testing in Korea). Players from all over the world interact in these virtual worlds through the messaging service provided in-game. With people exchanging views every now and then, and even befriending foreigners, online games have since turned into a medium of globalization as well (I do log on to Japanese servers for games such as 'Crystal Boarder', 'FantaTennis' and 'O2 Jam' and make some friends from Japan as well!).
If anyone has any views which they wish to share with regards to this, feel free to tag and have your voices heard. ^-^
11:34 AM
11:00 PM
I've always been a movie buff, especially when it comes to politically-inspired movies that get me thinking (and often end up criticizing one government or another-that's the fun part:D) Today, for my final post on our beloved SS blog, this political expert is going to introduce one of my favourite movies-Syriana! Go here to watch the trailer on youtube (yes, the movie is my source for today).
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iS3GFnSGOfk
Despite the many confusing and inter-related plot lines, my main focus today will be about international relations between countries, especially when it comes to dealing with global problems. In the film itself, an underlying theme was the prominent tension between the United States and the Middle Eastern region over the issue of oil. To cut a long story short, the United States was desperate for oil which the Middle Eastern region wanted to keep for itself, and eventually resorted to underhand methods to obtain the oil it wanted-and this is where the plot gets confusing. But let's not go into that, shall we? The more important question is, to what extent does globalisation reshape state sovereignty, especially the sovereignty of the United States?
I have stated in most of my previous posts that globalisation is a force to be reckoned with in the world of international relations, as global organisations such as the United Nations redefine and over-ride state sovereignty. But yet, has anyone ever considered the fact that globalisation has actually STRENGTHENED the power and sovereignty of certain countries, such as the United States and other Western powers?
Think about it. In today's globalised world, we always talk about culture becoming homogenous, about national boundaries crumbling, about the whole world becoming one big country of sorts. But what culture are we following in today's day and age? Why, western culture, of course! The influence of the west is everywhere and is undeniable-the movie and recording industry, the way people dress and even the way we talk, think and act. The fact that all countries around the world are becoming clones of Western countries allows these Western countries to wield a significant amount of power, especially in terms of the revenue they rake in annually.
Being comparatively richer than other countries, as a result of globalisation that's mentioned above, allows Western countries to be more developed and to be able to have more say and influence in the international arena. One very good example would be the United States (yes, an often exhausted example, but bear with me!)
The leaders of the land of the free rarely listen or take advice from anyone but themselves. President Bush quashed the objections of the Security Council and the rest of the Big 5 members and went ahead with the Iraq War. Why could he do this without facing any consequences? It is simply because the United States holds the most power in the world today. Economic sanctions and other forms of punishment would have little effect, as the country is already relatively self-sufficient. Furthermore, if the United States does not get its way, it might thrown an ugly tantrum, and other countries quake with fear at the thought of the United States as an enemy. Globalisation has made it an economic, political and military force to be reckoned with. Revenue as a result of globalisation has enabled the United States to build itself up into the formidable force it is today.
The fact of the matter is, the United States (and therefore other Western countries) are so strong that they are able to dominate proceedings in international organisations such as the UN and the WTO. These organisations supposedly are led by no particular country, yet it is undeniable that they would be largely ineffective without the participation of the United States. Globalisation has inadvertently strengthened the position and sovereignty of the United States-it is able to voice out its national concerns and look out for its national interests, even when these conflict with global interests. For example, trade agreements involving coffee at the WTO usually shortchanges African countries such as Ethiopia, in the favour of the United States. Whenever the US is unhappy with any particular country (and this happens often, mind you, think of the nuclear power tussles with Iran and North Korea), all it has to do is threaten the country with economic sanctions or the threat of bombings, and these countries begin to seriously reconsider the possibility of disarming. No country would want to incur the wrath of the United States.
It is a plain fact the United States is the most dominant power today. It is a representation of the power of Western civiliztions. But I reiterate, where would it be without the power of globalisation? Globalisation has ensured that Western culture is able to pervade all countries, whether they like it or not, raking in much revenue for the US in the process.
I have argued that globalisation will ultimately make states and nations crumble, reducing state sovereignty to something seemingly irrelevant. However, I have also shown you in my post today how globalisation can actually cause the sovereignty and power of certain states to be strengthened. So, after my 5 posts, the question remains-will globalisation make or break state sovereignty? It's something for you to think about, and as a political expert, I'll leave you with a statement most politicians enjoy saying (especially during campaigning periods)-The Power Is In Your Hands. You Decide.
Eternally Politically Incorrect and bidding a fond farewell,
Xiu Qing(:
10:37 PM
