Forgive me if this blog turns out to be random and scattered all over the place, I don’t really have a central focus. First of all… Bravo! Good job UC’ers, I think we had a good debate for a first class. The only problem I think we all had was progressing… we couldn’t seem to move on from several minute details (cough*plumbing*cough). It’s easy to get caught up with the little things, maybe next time we can cover more issues.
I do think, no matter how difficult it can be, that the idea of the baseball is actually very logical. There were many times when I felt like interjecting a comment while someone else was making a point and in a normal class that would probably be acceptable but it would cause tension. The baseball kept us from interrupting, though, and it brought a certain level of courtesy and respect to the class. It’s important to realize that everyone in our World Politics course is passionate about the subject matter so even though some are less outspoken than others, everyone has opinions that he or she feels strongly about. The baseball can help bring these people with interesting perspectives into the debate… so my hope is that we utilize the baseball. Let everyone speak, this isn’t a competition, we are all trying to learn from each other. I'm curious... any other opinions about the baseball?
Rob… in response to your question of privatization versus government services, I don’t think it’s a matter of either/or, rather how both of these groups can work together to produce functioning services. Both private organizations and the government have something to offer to the people of our country and of the world… both have strengths and weaknesses… both can help in different ways, so it’s most logical for them to work together. Also, I agree with your point about looking at each issue’s individually before proclaiming it to be “world politics” because, let’s face it, generalization is never a good thing nor does it work!
On a note of globalization, I think it’s pretty dang cool. There was a time in human history that globalization was impossible! Humans have worked toward this goal to be interdependent and connected for a very long time so no matter how many negative factors there may be we should all appreciate globalization. Sure, local can be the way to go, but why not work together with the billions of people around the world? Utilizing different countries more often than not will benefit our society and the world society… isolating ourselves will only limit growth. But of course, moderation in all things! Some globalization and some localization will bring about the most functioning society.
One last point I would like to make… just because it is human nature to put ourselves or our country before others, I think the human race is evolving into a more caring nature. People across the world want peace and that desire eventually brought about the United Nations. We are a compassionate being, so we should not dismiss the idea of the United Nations just based on the assumption that all humans have selfish and protective cavemen instincts. Give our race more credit… maybe I’m an idealist but I think the UN can work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Actually Emily dear, I'm going to have to disagree with you a little bit...on the subject of globalization.
While I do absolutely agree that the world perspective, that globalization allows, is incredibly valuable, there are certain major drawbacks that must be considered; specifically, cultural identity.
You cannot disavow the importance, at least that many feel, of having a cultural heritage. Though it may be easy for you and I to say that we appreciate the effects that globalization has had on society, there are many people, in other countries who feel as though their cultural framework is disintegrating. In France for instance, globalization is resulting in an alteration in the vernacular. Traditionally, the French phrase for blue jeans would be "jeans bleu" (adjective follows the noun), but now it is becoming increasingly common to refer to jeans as "bleu jeans" (adjective precedes the noun, like in English). Many elder members of French society see this as a harbinger of the destruction of their great language (still, I think, the third most spoken in the world), and while they do seem persnickety, who can blame them for their desire to keep their history?
I could say a lot more, but I'm tired and should be asleep. Perhaps I will continue my argument tomorrow.
Oh! I never really thought of it that way... I guess that globalization can either enrich or detract from each culture. Perhaps globalization will create less diversity among the world community and we will become a more homogeneous world... Is that a good or bad thing? Or is it just different? I think globalization is inevitable, that's for sure, and there's nothing we can do to stop the spreading of cultures. Maybe there will be less conflict in a diluted, boring world culture. Do all of the unique cultures across the world just cause violence because of their many differences? Or do they mostly just enrich the world population? My answer would be that they do both... so maybe globalization can serve to teach us about other cultures which will both reduce conflict while simultaneously enlightening us on different prospectives. Overall I understand what you're arguing about cultural identity, but who's to say that cultures can't or shouldn't change with time? I think it's possible for cultures to evolve through globalization without losing their cultural identity.
Post a Comment