Many people wonder if Globalization, instead than bringing people closer together, is in fact just making them more uniform. Does Globalization destroy the cultural individuality of non-western nations? In an excerpt from James L. Watson’s book Golden Arches East: McDonalds in East Asia he discusses how the implementation of a McDonalds, a traditionally Western institution based on free market capitalism, in China affected the local culture. Though he admits that the new fast food restaurant precipitated some basic changes in an economic and structural way, he also assures the reader that the people of Hong Kong were not stripped of their heritage or identity.
Let’s take McDonalds as an example of the far spanning reach of Globalization. McDonalds is after all one of the largest international corporation in the world, operating in over a hundred countries with over 31,000 total restaurant locations. From personal travel I have seen many different McDonalds in many different countries. But what has become apparent is that, more then anything else, the local culture seems to shape the institution, not the other way around. For example, a few years ago I was in Tunisia, a small North African country bordering the Mediterranean. Because of the Muslim dominant culture McDonalds was forced to craft its menu around the dietary restrictions of Muslims. As such, the menu had no fish on the menu, no pork, fewer beef products, and veggie pizza.
The point is that in order to be economically viable in countries like Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and China, the individual restaurants must be willing to grow within the confines of the local culture and tradition. In this sense, neither capitalism nor globalism is destroying non-western culture; rather, it is because of globalism that traditionally western institutions must learn about cultures other than their own. What’s so bad about that?

Knowing that most of the people reading this blog are teachers and administrators (who am I kidding: only teachers and administrators) I would like to take a moment to apologize. I know that in class I am usually the talker; I like dominating discussions, arguing with my peers and even with my teachers, and for that I am sorry. However, the USM administration may take solace in the fact that it has finally presented me a course that shuts me up. It’s true; Global Studies is unlike the other classes that I have taken in that I shockingly have no concrete opinion on any subject we have thus far discussed. There is a reason for this, and it is not that I have learned to share the airspace of a classroom.

I have always loved history class. I love looking at the tiny facets of bigger ideas, and understanding how the world we live in was shaped by moments and ideologies of the past. I thought Global Studies would be like my other history courses with the above focus. I was wrong. The difference here is that I am not a child of the revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, or of the Cold War. No, I have grown up in the age of Globalism. I am a product of the Internet, sushi bars, international corporations, and free market capitalism. So to take a class which forces me to look, not at the past to see how it has shaped the present, but to critically look to the present to see how it will make a future creates a different sensation entirely. More over, it leads me to question the very principles of the world I have grown to trust. That perhaps I should not question individual politicians but the system under which they work, not to criticize a selfish businessman but the type economy that allows him to prosper.

So how can I have any concrete opinions on subjects with such a wide birth? Capitalism: good or bad, how the hell should I know? To each legitimate idea there is a legitimate argument against it. In a class that approaches the world in such a holistic manner how can I know what is right, or what is wrong? Maybe the truth is that there are more than two sides to the issues, maybe there are hundreds of sides, each with their own distinctions and idiosyncrasies, ideologies and beliefs, pros and cons, and the black and white of this world is meant only for the newspapers.

It can be frightening to know that you may be facing questions that force inner reflection, that challenge the infrastructure of the world you know. Even in recent classes I have found myself clinging to my perceptions I see them being torn from my fingers. But I will say this. This may be the most interesting class I have ever had, and the single most important one any student can take. There is nothing wrong with changing ideas; it is the very definition of progress.

According to Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, capitalism requires larger markets, newer supplier and more consumers. Thus, as industry grew so did capitalism, launching an expansion that would envelope the globe, interconnecting individuals and organizations worlds apart. In truth, the Republic that capitalism fosters destroys the Feudal classes the 17th and 16th century. As Marx says, capitalism has “torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his natural superiors”. But while Marx says this fuels “callous” self-interest, I say it fuels community. In a capitalist society, contrary to the opinions of both Marx and Karl Polyani, people do not look at one another as though they have a price on their foreheads. Rather, in a capitalist republic, society must look inward and ask how much can they be worth to others. What can one person offer to someone else? It is because of the inwardly reflective nature of a capitalist society that people choose to strive for more, to extend themselves, learn more, and improve their own self worth; not to be viewed as more valuable by others, but to know that there is more they can offer to the rest. In a way what I mean is that the ideology Marx seems to detest so much cultivates progress, the kind of progress that destroys the barriers that may have otherwise have separated peoples of all races and religions. Free markets do not see skin color or heritage; they see opportunity, opportunity that has in recent history brought people closer together.

In Tony Judt's article "What have We Learned, If Anything?", he explains that, though the 20th century was a revolutionary one, filled with both successes and disasters on far grander scales than ever before, it seems that the world has begun to forget the lessons they taught. As the World moved into the 21st century, Judt argues that it did so with a feeling that the past was behind it, and the world ahead was a new one entirely. Such attitudes have made the first decade of this new millennium chaotic and unwieldy.

The Case Against the West, written by Kishore Mahububani, describes the disconnect that has occurredbetween the West and the rest of the world that occurred during of the apex of globalization. He explains that the West's views itself as an omnipotent force, believing that its duty to lead to world into the 21st century allows it to leave behind the rules and regulation it has taken to responsibility to enforce. As such, the rest of the world has begun to disregard the wishes of the West, and have grown strong doing so. It seems the power of the West is dwindling.

In the United States, the cost of an Avtomat Kalashnikov model of 1947, more commonly known as an AK 47, can be anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars. Yet all over the world, in the poorest countries, wars are fought primarily with this assault rifle. How can it be that people who often cannot afford to feed or clothe themselves and sometimes live on as little as a dollar a day can afford this weapon, and other small arms, like grenades, explosives, or RPG’s. Somewhere, someone is purchasing these weapons, and someone else is profiting from the violence they fuel. Who then is willing to pay and who is willing to profit from the small arms conflicts around the world?