"...in places there are Ministers of Culture it means there is no culture...In countries that have no culture or are afraid they may have no culture, there is a Minister of Culture. And what is culture, anyway? In some places it is the way you play the drum; in other places, it's just the way you behave out in public; and in still other places; it's just the way a person cooks food. And so what is there to preserve about these things? For it is not so that people make them up as they go along, make them up as they need them." p. 49-50
-A Small Place Jamaica Kincaid
In this passage Kincaid states that Antigua has no culture of its own. In a country such as Antigua being ruled by the British for so long, globalization has had major affects on it. Once globalization happens in a country it starts to lose it's tradition or "culture" because it is busy trying to "globalize" and meeting standards of other countries. It starts to leave behind some of it's old ways to keep up with modern times and being somewhat the same in every aspect as other countries. It's a competition and for the people of the country globalization takes away their identity and may come up with their own culture because they don't know what is truly their culture. Globalization is like a double-edged sword, there are positives and negatives about globalization.
"But Globalization 3.o not only differs from the previous eras in how it is shrinking and flattening the world and in how it is empowering individuals. It is different in that Global 1.0 and 2.0 were driven primarily by European and American individuals and business. Even though China actually has the biggest economy in the world in the 18th century it was Western countries, companies and explorers who were doing the most globalizing and shaping of the system."
-The World is Flat Thomas Friedman
Friedman says that as globalization is taking over the world it is shrinking and flattening the world by not really giving it any demensions. Again economies are becoming uniform therefore "flattening" it and therefore creating competition. It is different from the other eras because now it has opened up doors to others other then the Europeans and Americans. Before as Friedman mentioned it was mostly Europeans and Americans globalizing and know it is for everyone. This marks that countries are more connected to eachother than before and that it may be harder for other economies, others are stepping up to the plate.
I liked how you compared globalization to a double edged sword. Yes, indeed globalization does have pro's and con's to it and I think that it is up to the country that was once colonized to decide it the colonizers did more good or more bad to them. Some optimists may say that it is good to learn new cultures and new traditions, but then the old ones will be forgotten. I personally think that if it were not for the Europeans taking over Antigua, then it would have not been so well known of its tourist attractions as it is today.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThese two quotes are interesting to compare. It seems like Kincaid's quote undermines Friedman's analysis. He tries to emphasize the importance of economic growth in globalization. He falsely overgeneralizes, though, when stating it empowers non-European and American businesses and individuals. Antigua's situation is a perfect example of how globalization hasn't yet achieved such equality. Even more, these two passages clash against the overall effects of globalization—is the loss of culture really worth an economic gain? What I find even more intriguing, would the Antiguans even have a culture to uphold if it weren't for their oppression by the British? Without the exploitation of the slave trade, the “Antiguans” would never have even seen the island of Antigua--strange double bind.
ReplyDeleteKaren- I do believe colonization and globalization is a double-edged sword. It did some good but I believe it did more bad. In one of my classes we've been taught to be see things from different perspectives and if you look at it through the eyes of the people you will find that because of colonization these people have lost their culture, traditions and identity, Think of the Native-Americans in the U.S. or when India was colonized by the British. This destroys the culture of others, it forces people to assimilate to the colonizers ways.
ReplyDeleteI think this idea of globalization 3.0 really addresses hopefully what we see to come. More and more contributions to the world and more people having say in their world. I think that it may help create more individual cultural concepts to add to the now globalized world. I believe that this concept of globalization will bring our world into a more basic way of thinking which will hopefully give rise to the "little people" contributing more to this world.
ReplyDelete