MAKING OF THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Globalization to my understanding is the process of transformation of local phenomena to global ones and to take note of the fact that neither the local or the global are eliminating one another but have cannibalized each other. I think that there are different and numerous dimensions of Globalization and these include: Economic, Technological, Political, Cultural, Legal and Biological.  To elaborate more on Globalization, I would give the example of the Columbian exchange which followed the arrival of Columbus in the Caribbean. It was simply the exchange of cultures, resources, languages and ideas to and fro the Americas and Afro-Eurasia. it gave essence to globalization because it involved making the local, global and vice-versa. I disagree on the notion made by Bright and Dyer that Globalization ‘bore a distancing relationship to the past’ because there have been several accounts of de-globalization like the interwar period and the 2007-2009 economic crisis which was as serious as the Great Depression. This would rather reattach the link between proto-globalization, modern globalization and present globalization.

TEST

 

I thought that within the reading Bright and Geyer raised many interesting ideas about globalization. They very thoroughly covered the accomplishments of globalization as they discussed the replacement of old narratives and the now disconnect of world history from European history. The “rise of the west”was no more and the new history rewrites the prehistory of our present day history. This divergence from Europe and the displacement of empires transitioning to nations caused rivalries and conflict. Nations had to adapt and survive through agriculture and primary production.

Also, one of the topics that specifically stuck out to me was the idea of our world transitioning from being explored and connected to now becoming more and more interconnected by the day. Over the course of modern history, the world has been changing rapidly. Old methods of communication and transportation have made way for newer, faster, and better means that help the world work smarter, faster, and more precisely. Innovation has skyrocketed our knowledge of technology, and the human race is now globally on a much closer level than ever before.

However, this closeness isn’t geographical or cultural, but instead through the vast, interconnected network of technology which we are building and expanding on by the day. These technologies really helped this idea of enmeshment and people having to engage in our entangled world.

I do have a bit of a disagreement with Bright and Geyer’s claim that the world is no longer in a period of globalization. I feel that globalization in it self is ever adapting with worldly updates such as trade agreements and global conflicts. The globe is really never in a state where no change is happening. Goods, services, ideas, culture, ect. are constantly being transported across the globe.

However, I do agree with the claim that the way in which globalization has occurred is due to the survival of the fittest model. With the innovation happening today, industrialized/developed nations are at a clear advantaged to under-developed countries. Countries such as the United States, China, and other have clear political and economic clout due to their actions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

What interested me what the idea of the change in economic disparity and how poverty is now associated with the slums of cities, rather than rural areas. I think this can also be connected more to nations in themselves due to the industrial era as well as the periods of imperialism. I think that many developed countries are at a clear advantage due to the ways in which they exploited small nations. This exploitation, paired with a rapid decolonization caused great political and economic turmoil, and still affect imperialized nations today. I think the claim that the world is not in a period of catching up is correct because of the fact that the imperialist tendencies of these industrialized countries made it almost impossible for smaller nations to catch up in the first place.