Well I believe globalisation is a very important topic in the world seeing as we are all part of the global society. I ask of you whata are your opinions on globalisation.

I myself find globalisation is generally a good thing (this coming from a middle class person) as it generally means a higher living standard that is created through cheaper trade witht he rest of the world. I also find it most enjoyable being able to go down the road and eat food from anywhere in the world. I think that the blending of cultures is a beautiful thing rather than a disatser as some people complain cultures are being lost.

However I'm an Australian and kind of look down at the process of Americanisation as oppose to globalisation. I find that americans (as a country, not a people (please...i mean no offence)) try and dominate the world through markets and cultural influence.

I think that as this is an anime focused forum that most people will be all for globalisation as it has allowed the influence of anime into our societies, no globalisation would have meant no anime right? I'm sure some have seen the petition about banning anime in the USA, i instantly thought that this was written by an american conformist who's set on domination.

I'm studying this concept at the moment and would be very appreciative if you could help me with some ideas and opinions towards the subject. It would be very helpful and also very interesting to see what others think.

Weather it is good or bad is beside the point, it is unavoidable and unstoppable.

Whoever tried to ban anime in the USA was probably just another fool like you find in any country; the only people who listen to things like that are sensationalists and other fools.

Globalization as a concept is neither good or bad. The sharing of cultural traits between societies will always increase as communication increases. We are at a unique point in history where nearly every culture is in communication with nearly every other culture.

Like a child learns from parents and peers, societies learn how to succeed from other (hopefully more successful) societies. The unprecedented technological explosion has created a homogeneity that humans have never seen before (on this scale).

America has a well-deserved reputation for being a bully, both capitilistically and militarily. It was only a series of lucky events that created the super-power we call America, it could have happened to any number of countries/societies/cultures given the right circumstances.

Globalization is an inevitable and (I think) wonderful thing. Geography will always create cultural differences so cultural individuality will not be lost. Cultures will just become stronger, smarter, and more similar. And hopefully be able to get along more peacufully.

While the idea is quite nice, we must look at ourselves as what we are: we're humans and humans have the need to dominate. There's going to be some culture, some race, some one that will try to come out on top. They're going to do the best they can to make what they believe, practice, and are be the norm and what is done by all.

I personally like the idea of having different cultures with they're own individuality, and sorry knori, but I think that globalization runs the risk of losing that. Sure, they'll keep the main things, but I dunno... I'm just the type of person who prizes culture and tradition. I'm an American and well, we don't have too much of that here. So I like it when I see other cultures still uniquely their own.

While it's cool that cultures around the world are sharing things, American excessively so, it's important to note that other countries must be willing to accept them. With claims of America being a bully and enforcing its policies, look also at other aspects of its culture, such as our immense entertainment industry. It's popular all over the world. It's accepted and wanted. It serves as great an influence of Americanization as government, maybe even more so. I mean, heck. Look at the internet. The car. Electricity. Potatoes. :P

I hope I don't seem contradictory here, speaking against globalization yet defending Americanization (to a point), but I'm studying world religions and I'd like to use the Japanese as an example. Traditionally, they're mostly Shinto and Buddhism, the latter being the more foreign religion. I'll skip details and just try to make the point that despite all the outside religions coming into that country, the Japanese have such a solid culture and sense of nationalism, that they take those religions and give it a Japanese point of view. They interpret it with a Japanese frame of mind. So naturally, different cultures will retain their individuality and with that, their secrets.

Globalization in theory is nice when all members of the world economy (whether they are a local mom/pop food stall/business or are a global business like Nestle or Vodaphone) are able to compete FAIRLY against each other. Keyword here is FAIR. Unfortunately, not all of the conditions are and thus, you have the concept of dominance playing here. Let's put this another way -- McDonalds opens up a stall next to a local burger store, and they offer the exact same menu but they're in Australia or something (just to keep the language barrier fair). Assume there is no difference in exchange rate, all things are constant and similar between the two except the size of the McD corporation and the MomNPop store. Because McDonalds has so much more resources, they can afford to bully around the Mom n' Pop store until they close down (perhaps through price slashing or some other method). McDonalds would have an unfair advantage against the MnP store. Some people may call this Capitalism, but I would say, this is more like the concept of Globalization. Oh btw all of this is from an economic standpoint -- cultural globalization is separate.

Take Nestle as another example -- when they introduced powdered milk to less developed countries, they were encouraging a change in the way people behaved in these less developed countries. Breast feeding was no longer the "in-thing" to do since it was now popular to feed using powdered milk. It might be a lousy example but littlejonny100, if you want a more thorough example, pls PM me so i can clarify my position in this specific paragraph.

On a cultural standpoint, all of the other posts have already touched upon this subject. One thing i think they haven't touched upon is a strict culture-to-culture dominance. True, globalization can help people understand other cultures, but it can also lead to dominance. Take the Spaniards and the Aztec/Mayan/various Pacific Islanders/<Insert indigenous people here>. Their desire to "modernize" these "lowly Indians" basically meant slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people and nearly destroying their cultural identity. Again, there is the existence of an unfair advantage that Spaniards had in terms of destructive technology i.e. guns, cannons, and horses.

Homogeneity and a Cultural Revolution is nice in theory, but practicality isn't really there. Humans can be naturally greedy and can be naturally discriminant. Sometimes, a certain people are not given the right opportunity to explain themselves properly. Just as there are people who are naturally liberal in nature, there are people who are naturally conservative in outlook. It takes only one radical conservative to spoil the whole group (i.e. Hitler and Germany around the time of WWII).

In the end, it really depends on what perspective, what time period, and what aspect of globalization is being discussed. The topic is too broad (or maybe i make it too broad) but usually, this falls under the field of Anthropology. One of my papers for my Cross-Cultural Anthropology class discussed the topic of Globalization briefly and it was still quite a long paper.

Globalism will never work. Too many languages, cultures, and corrupt people. And corrupt people, like feces, tend to float to the top.

Well god dam....i just lost 5 paragraphs to MT3...i'll try to write them again.
Anyways i think i understand what your saying Kenrich but i think that idea of capitalisation only plays a very small part in globalisation. Many countries have realised this dominance and put a few restraints on what large corporations ccan do and likewise i find that mant locals will try to pick the local alternative as oppose to the large corporation when given an equal chance. At least we try to make the world work that way, there are always unfortunate exceptions. I think the best part of proving a point is real exmaples, the bigger the example the better.

Many people have claimed that one of the biggest contributors to globalisation is technology and the internet and the way it's enhanced communication so extraordinarily is the greatest influence. I disagree with this to an extent. My reasoning being that earlier on in the last centurt china had a great respect for America and kind of idolised them and tried to model from them. However as technology increased the Chinese could learn more and more about what Americas really like, as oppose to the image they portray to the world. The more technology and communication increased the more China knew about America and the less they started to love them. In this example we see technology doing the complete opposite of what is thought and we are left with a "retreat from the global".

I think Japan is a good example of globalisation as they have had a lot of western influence and let much of it into their country however at the same time as allowing these influence in they have moulded them into their own image so that even though some things are obviously western, they have a Japanese appearance. I'm quite sure the traditionalism of Japanese culture changes between the islands with the the southern islands like okinawa being much more tradional then the main island where the large (and most heavily influenced) cities are. I've never been to Japan myself (but would love to and will eventually) so i can't back this up properly however if anyone could help clarify or even prove me wrong that would be much appreciated :P

Capitalisation --> Capitalism ^__^

Ok yes you're right in your first paragraph, it is strictly due to the culture we are talking about. However, how much of a culture is changed due to undue influence? My point is not really capitalism, but more on the undue influence caused intentionally or unintentionally by other countries. Unrestricted capitalism breeds greed, which places tons of influence on foreign companies.

As for restraints on companies, the question here is not if there are policy or restraints, but if they are actually being enforced. Many times, policy will not be enforced due to the unfair influence that these companies have on the local government. There is often a conflict of interest between companies and government policy in lesser developed countries, because the local government is scared of offending foreign companies who invest there, lest they pull out their investments in search for other places. Another way to think of this is that first world governments can also bully around lesser developed countries in the import/export markets -- "if you don't accept our exports, we will make sure your exports will never reach elsewhere blah blah"... many times this has happened throughout history, where lesser developed countries are kept underdeveloped in order to exploit their hunger to import the first-world exports like technology and electronics, etc etc or even the most basic like foodstuffs.

You have a very good point about China and technology, I think you should include that in your paper as an argument. This is something that can be built more upon, perhaps if you can find another example somewhere.

Japan VS China is a very prickly subject -- the reason is because of their histories. Whereas Japan had an open-door policy at that time, China shut their doors and tried to kick out America and Europeans from the region. I am quite sure these differing policies had a profound influence on the culture's ability to keep certain customs. China was torn up piece by piece and in effect had their culture stalled from developing further for some time -- the foreign powers dictated what Chinese people could do through puppet governments. Japan i would assume had more leeway in preserving their culture since the foreign powers were more subjective, and since Japan gave more trade in/out as well. As far as i know, China had been more self-sufficient and was resistant to foreign trade.

Although I agree Jonny, with your point that globalization is an important fact in today's society, your reference to a higher living standard throughout the world from cheaper trade is not entirely true.

Take the corporation Nike, for example. They place factories throughout Asia because it's cheaper for them (them referring to Nike corp. in the US). Asia supplys cheap labor so why not invest factories over there to increase profits in NA? This is an example of a US corporation exploiting the cheap labor of lesser developing nations. An average worker in an indonesian factory (around 1998 or so) earned a mere $1.20US a month... a month! Do the indonesian workers attain a higher level of living from that monthly earning? The trade off here is cheap for the Americans, but not neccessarily for the Indonesians. Therefore you can't really say a higher living standard is achieved through globalization because a higher living standard for you, might not be for someone else who is struggling to survive on the other end of trade agreements.

Like others have mentioned here, the theory behind globalization is indeed a nice thing, but there are just too many obstacles right now that hold globalization back. For one, you have the economic seperation between countries (ie. the terms first and third world). Until countries are seen equally, the countries on top will always exploit those on the bottom. Another would be the population problem, which ties in with the whole economic seperation bit. I'll sum it up in one phrase which you can analyze yourself: The rich get richer and the poor get children. Also culture is another huge obstacle that prevents globalization. One countries cultural 'methods' may seem immoral or incorrect to another countries, but what would you do in this case? Would you intrude on their rights as a country and as a human being and alter their beliefs to better fit yours? This question ties in directly to the world politics of humanitarianism, which as you would have guessed is another huge factor that prevents globalization.

From my study of globalization I must agree that there are some good things that have happened for the world, but the fact of the matter is that there are just too many factors that say "no" to globalization. I would've elaborated more on what I think is wrong with globalization, but that would've been a pretty long read haha . Though from what I can see now, I don't think that in my time I will have the luxury of seeing the world working as one whole community.

AWESOME POST maikusama! Finally someone who has been able to make my unintelligible posts actually understandable! ty ty ty ^__^

I just wondered about your post however, maikusama, about your Nike example. In some instances, the pay that the local people would get is competitive to the local economy. What i mean by this is that the pay that Nike would give is roughly within the normal values of a national average income per head. This means that while Nike doesn't pay foreign factory workers as much as they would in America, for example, it is still competitive pay in relation to the other jobs in that country.

What we SHOULD take a look at, when making examples about pay, are the benefits -- does Nike provide a safe working environment? Does Nike provide some sort of health benefit to their workers even if just a little? Does Nike provide FAIR working hours? These are the real issues that people should focus on IMHO. It is still a good example nonetheless.

Nike is a good example and they do tend to take advantage of other countries but for countries that are stuggling anyway, a crappy investment is better than no investment at all right? We may think otherwise but that comes back to my idea that it raises living standards all around. We may say that their being taken advantage of and given not so good working conditions...but what would become of them if they didn't have this little extra income? And if they didn't have poor factory working conditions, does that mean they'ld have worse living on the street conditions.

Maikusama....i just want to say i adore your saying of "The rich get richer and the poor get children". I've always thought that Chinas massive population must do something to strain their living standards yet their economy is soaring. If it doesn't collapse then it's possible that they will indeed become the next super-power over America.

An interesting idea i read somewhere and something we may all wish to consider is that if China do become the next dominating power, that a reverse Americanisation will occur....there will be Chinaisation (what a nice word :P). As China remain dominant people will slowly pick up Chinese culture and Chinese language (Cantonese i think is the main dialect). I'm in Australia so I know the feeling of Americas cultural dominance, but to the Americans....how do you think you would handle it if China started to culturally dominate over you.

This is becoming very rhetorical but globalisation in theory is suppose to be a blending of cultures more than a complete dominance. Of course that is theory and a perfect blend or a complete dominance doesn't exist but we must decide where in the middle this should occur.

Hehe thanks ^_^ oh and that line I used, I'm not taking credit for it since it was an observation made by Scott Fitzgerald if I remember correctly

Anyways yes, I forgot to take into account the view of the Asian worker in my previous post. And you are right Jonny in that the Asian worker does see that holding a job (no matter the pay) is better than holding no job at all, but how they are able to live off their wages I wouldn't necessarily call it a "higher living standard" but again that is debateable.

At the moment however China's birthrate has been steadily declining, right now the concern is in Africa. And it is a possibilty that China may be the next super power, what with all the new technology and everything, not to mention their massive population. However, a theory like Chinaization is a bit far fetched from my perspective, but who knows maybe after my life time things will change? (Oh and the main dialect is Mandarin).

Globalization is tricky, to me personally I never think a perfect global society will ever be achieved, however, as we can see in today's society everywhere there is infact a blend of cultures like you said jonny. But even trying to find a middle ground where all nations around the world can agree on is much easier said than done. In the world there is alot of different views on what is "right" or "wrong" and until people can learn to accept each other more the most we can have is, for example, a McDonald's located in Moscow.

I'm totally against it. Isolationism was much better.

i like the idea of blending ideas... although i do see what some people are saying about loosing part of the original culture... they are creating a new culture with new ideas... it does not have to be a bad thing... im an American ... but i have friends from india , pakistan, korea... and i love taking parts of their culture ( i do an indian dance with 3 of my indian friends every year!) ohh but i have a question ... what is this petition for banning anime in the USA? i hadnt heard about that....! i would be so devistated... do you know what ppl are saying against anime... or why this petition even came about?... i hope to talk to you soon! Ja-nee!

i live here in germany and i must say globilsation destroys workspace.
afew people who work for money width what a normal guy only one can do = "DIE"

I imagine it will be quite good for the wealthy. I also imagine a lot of little people being steam rollered out of existance. I like the idea of a deomocracy but capitalism is definately one of it's uglier attributes. Unless you have connections or you are already wealthy.

not sure, i don't think it really good though