Tuesday, April 24, 2007
click
HERE for the article
In this case study of Hispanics who migrate to America and attempt to assimilate, an interesting trend as been noted, that increasing percentages of these traditionally religious Hispanics abandon their religion and stop going to church. Does assimilation in other another country spell the abandonment of traditional ways of life and customs? If so, this could potentially result in the homogenization of culture and the loss of many unique customs and practices that add to the richness of a given culture.
Increased secularization has largely been attributed to the increased materialism of immigrants whence they have settled in the United States. This materialistic culture is often a hallmark of developed countries and is fast becoming the norm in developing countries as well. As conventional economic and social progress is often intrinsically to the adoption of Western economic and political systems, more specifically, the free market economy and democracy.
As such, increased exposure to the pervasive materialistic nature of Western culture has resulted in the dilution of indigenous cultures. Instead being a melting pot of diverse cultures that co-exist in harmony, society in the United States has become a sort of cookie cutter that forces foreigners to assimilate completely. Even those that don’t are in name only. Like the many Hispanics who identify themselves as Christian or Catholic but rarely attend church services.
Clare the cultural expert!
Labels: cultural globalization
8:03 PM
“During the 20th century, global average per capita income rose strongly, but with considerable variation among countries. It is clear that the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. The most recent World Economic Outlook studies 42 countries (representing almost 90 percent of world population) for which data are available for the entire 20th century. It reaches the conclusion that output per capita has risen appreciably but that the distribution of income among countries has become more unequal than at the beginning of the century.But incomes do not tell the whole story; broader measures of welfare that take account of social conditions show that poorer countries have made considerable progress. For instance, some low-income countries, e.g. Sri Lanka, have quite impressive social indicators. One recent paper finds that if countries are compared using the UN’s Human Development Indicators (HDI), which take education and life expectancy into account, then the picture that emerges is quite different from that suggested by the income data alone. Indeed the gaps may have narrowed. A striking inference from the study is a contrast between what may be termed an "income gap" and an "HDI gap". The (inflation-adjusted) income levels of today’s poor countries are still well below those of the leading countries in 1870. And the gap in incomes has increased. But judged by their HDIs, today’s poor countries are well ahead of where the leading countries were in 1870. This is largely because medical advances and improved living standards have brought strong increases in life expectancy.
But even if the HDI gap has narrowed in the long-term, far too many people are losing ground. Life expectancy may have increased but the quality of life for many has not improved, with many still in abject poverty. And the spread of AIDS through Africa in the past decade is reducing life expectancy in many countries.This has brought new urgency to policies specifically designed to alleviate poverty. Countries with a strong growth record, pursuing the right policies, can expect to see a sustained reduction in poverty, since recent evidence suggests that there exists at least a one-to-one correspondence between growth and poverty reduction. And if strongly pro-poor policies—for instance in well-targeted social expenditure—are pursued then there is a better chance that growth will be amplified into more rapid poverty reduction. This is one compelling reason for all economic policy makers, including the IMF, to pay heed more explicitly to the objective of poverty reduction.”
Indeed, this is one of the more important issues of globalisation. Is it good or bad? Does it help all people or just benefit the rich? According to the article, globalisation itself has not done much to help the poor to become richer. However, it has enabled poorer countries to enforce laws which will hopefully bridge the gap between the rich and poor. Also, the income gap may have grown larger, however overall the living conditions of poorer countries have improved with globalisation. Because of the many networks in the world, their conditions have improved greatly. The main problem is that although the living conditions of the poorer countries have improved as compared to 15 years ago, those of the rich countries have improved even more and faster. This trend will probably continue unless a conscious effort is made to help the poorer countries. However, because of globalisation, and the interdependence of countries on one another to sustain their economy, competition between countries is essential, and with the rise of another country with a stable economy would lead to the drop in the economy of another. This ultimate threat could be one of the main reasons why the richer countries have not extended a full helping hand towards the poorer countries.
However the helping hand is urgently needed. Within poor countries themselves, not much seems to have changed. The living conditions, though better, and not up to modern standards. This could be because as the world develops further, the expectations of living conditions rise. However, as the income of different countries shows, the difference in income between the rich and poor is increasing. Logically, more income for richer countries should lead to them being able to aid poorer countries more easily. Unfortunately, it is not the case, probably because as income increases, so do the needs for an average middle class person.
To further illustrate this problem, here's a cartoon:
The cartoon illustrates the bleak future if globalization continues as it has been going. Basically, it paints an even darker image of globalization than the article by pointing out that it is entirely possible that one day not only the poor will suffer from globalization, but even people who currently have comfortable steady office (or white collar) jobs. It is already starting with the 'blue collar' jobs (one's which involve manual labour/technicians) For example, there is more and more advanced farm equipment, and due to globalisation more and more countries can afford this. The manpower which used to be needed on farms has now been reduced to the bare minimum, thanks to the machinery which has taken its place. Factory workers are almost non-existant compared to the past, now that there is advanced machinary. And so the long line of unemployment grows.
The cartoon also portrays an image of why humans welcome globalisation. "Goods become cheaper and are eagerly snatched up by HAPPY consumers" But it fails to mention that this is not actually the main reason why globalisation seems to be beneficial. As mentioned above, poorer countries have greatly benefitted from globalisation. The people's standards of living has improved beyond all doubt, which is ultimately the goal of globalisation. That can be seen by the following cartoon.
Yet if the future of globalisation is as bad as the first cartoon claims, we should really ask ourselves whether it is worth it, especially since poor countries have not caught up as much as should be expected.
Sonia Khiatani
Economic Expert
Labels: economic globalization, poverty
7:41 PM
Monday, April 9, 2007
Cocacolonization
is a term for globalization or cultural colonization. It is a portmanteau of the name of the multinational soft drink maker
Coca-Cola and the word
colonization. (
source)
Cocacolonization has negative connotations and is often used to describe the erosion of traditional non-Western values by Western culture. It has also been used to describe the importation of Western, particularly American goods, hence the use of 'Coca-Cola' in the word especially since Coca-Cola and America are typically identified with one another. Cocacolonization represented the fears many had of monoculturalism.
However, one must not be so narrow-minded to use globalization and cocacolonization synonymously. In globalization, the ideas flow both ways, in fact, this exchange of ideas has been around since the beginning of time. (
source)
As the article rightly points out, we are currently in the third stage of globalization where developing countries, who were not included in the rapid industrialisation that followed the industrial revolution for one reason or another, are catching up. And rapidly at that.
Yet many decry this phenomenon to be the supplanting of Western culture in other countries at the expense of indigenous cultures, traditions and practices. However this is simply not true as many of the advances in technology, science and other aspects of society were either directly or indirectly derived from the "cross-fertilization" between Eastern cultures (e.g. India and China) and Europe. This has been called the first round of globalization by Ashutosh Sheshabalaya, author of the article.
It seems that globalisation has come full circle, and the world might be moving towards global equity after centuries of global inequity. Additionally, such a free exchange in ideas could also result in cultural homogenization or the rise of monoculturalism. Whether these claims are just and accurate will be further explored in subsequent posts.
Clare the cultural expert!
Labels: cultural globalization
9:19 PM
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
HEALTH and ENVIRONMENT
Firstly, before i go on to the reflection, let me stress the point that this picture is taken TEMASEK JUNIOR COLLEGE which, is located in Singapore.
Often, one of the major causes of health problems are hunger and malnutrition. However, the environment too plays a very important part.
Since globalization, they way structures, building etc have changed. Toilets are no exception. From duing your daily businesses between bushes to into holes to into pails and drains and now to toilet bowls. Comparing this four. as it gets to the latter, with the exception of the first, the cleanliness lever tends to get higher.
Well, i'm sure everyone has peed in a bush before. This sight is in fact quite common among toddlers that even if you were to step or touch a part of the bush which have been "watered" before, I bet you would not even realize you did. Yet, though its a common sight, our disposal act as fertilizers to the plants thus being consumed by them. However this required a certain amount of time for the whole cycle to take effect thus it would have different cleanliness levels ar different times.
Holes in the ground tend to collect the foulest of all things including bacteria, waste, decomposing stuff and of course living animals' feces. Also, holes are usually not really taken care off but usually used to dump all unwanted materials or dead organisms resulting in a very low cleaniness level. Diseases thus tend to spread in places like that.
Pails on the other hand are used to collect unwanted materials and then being disposed off. The potty used by a toddler is an example of the pail. Comparing it to holes, due to the frequent emptying of "unwanted materials" the cleanliness level is higher.
Drains are more of a convenience of letting loose nature's call then the usual disposal in a toilet. However, in places like Singapore, drains are frequently cleaned and also, scenes of people doing their business in drains are uncommon. Thus, like the Pails, its cleanliness level is above that of the holes.
Toilets are the cleanest among the four. This is because it is the most modernized way of disposal. Equipped with a flushing system and a seat for comfort, who would rule the pail over this? What's more this does not require much of dirty cleaning job. Yet, this is provided the user knows where to do the job and not just doing it anywhere.
Places of low cleanliness level tend to be moist and are accompanied by a certain stench, Places like this are potential grounds for disease spreading and breeding grounds for pests.
As the picture taken was in Singap0ore and Singapore have quite a high cleanliness level, the cubicals seen are thus clean upholding Singapore's reputation as a clean city. However, we have to bear in mind that not all countries are like Singapore which is considered to be modernized. Toilets without doors and very low cleanliness level like rural places in China are still present.
Denise Lim
Health and Environmental expert
9:01 PM
Temasek Idol? This must be one of the newest additions to TJ’s activities. The so-called ‘Idol fever’ which originated in America has now spread to many countries all over the world. Randy, Paula and Simon, the 3 American idol judges, are being imitated around the globe, in many different languages. In 2004 the first season of Singapore Idol was launched in Singapore. And now it has even come to TJC, though it has been slightly adapted. However it is not only the idol fever itself, but also the instruments used, in this case a guitar, which have been imported from other countries. They were not traditionally found in Singapore. This is the case for most instruments. They have been brought over from Europe and America, and there are a numerous number of shops selling musical instruments in Singapore shopping malls now.
Labels: culture, tj
8:50 PM
