Globalisation

facilitator

Is globalisation just americanisation? are they the same thing?

DeVore

They are not the same thing. Globalisation is the use of national boundarys by corporations to subjugate part of the world to their benefit in other parts of the world basically.

The book NOLOGO (which is my current book of the month ) has a good history of the start of the anti-globalisation movement (whose tactics I only partly agree with).

America has a lot of multinationals so it might appear as colonisation but its just the old story of the rich getting richer and the poor getting children.

DeV.

facilitator

They might be different things, but is the net effect the same, the extension of American culture accross national boundaries? There are many mulitnationals from different countries, but they don't appear to have the effect of promoting (say) British culture or Dutch culture. Maybe it comes down to marketing: more American companies sell a 'way of life' than other countries. Examples might be Coke or MacDonalds. Food for thought.

DeVore

If china flexes its internation muscles we'll all be eating with chopsticks.

China has 1 in 6 of the worlds population. America has 4%.

Dev.

mike65

A cheery thought....

Globalsiation cannot, repeat, cannot be defeated. Its in everything you hear, watch and otherwise consume. If its not one logo its another, the only choice is in which is less likely to make you feel guilty, if guilt is an issue for you...that or live on a deserted island and eat seagulls.

Mike.

m1ke

I don't think globalisation is americanisation. I think americanisation is just an unwelcome side effect of globalisation.

Once its more nasty side effects are controlled then it has the potential to solve many of the sufferings in the world. It has the ability to do both good and harm.

There are many but this is my preferred definition :
Geographic distance becomes a factor of diminishing importance in social/economic and political terms. Instantaneous communications, knowledge and culture can be shared around the world simultaneously.

DadaKopf

Globalisation is a lot of things. One of them is certainly US led global trade liberalisation.

In general, globalisation can generally be understood as a multi-faceted process of deterritorialisation as a result of globalising technologies, particularly air travel and telecommunications.

Globalisation doesn't necessarily mean 'Americanisation' - that really refers to America's dominant position in international relations. Had China come to prominance instead of the US, we may be calling it Chinisation.

bonkey

deV - if you havent read it yet, I'd suggest "Globalization and its discontents" by Stiglitz as an interesting followup read.

Its an examination (condemnation in parts) of how the IMF - and World Bank to a lesser extent - works in practice, written by a Nobel-prize winning ex-Chief Economist of the World Bank.

I've no idea how credible his writing is considered to be, but it does come across very well. He stops short of stating a belief in any conspiracy (he puts it down mostly to stupidity), its still pretty damning stuff.

(Getting back on topic)

It would also seem to link the US to globalisation in a way, but its easy to argue that globalisation would exist even in the absence of the US as the leading power in the world, so I'd be inclined to say that they are related, but not identical.

jc

Catsmokinpot

first of all, i am not the intellectual type that studies world events but this is my opinion as i see it

americans are trying to use alot of aspects of globalisation to win us over but, americanisation is very unwelcome all over the globe tbh its a greedy corporate culture and, while granted their are greedy ppl in this world hopefully the majority havent been brainwashed enough to be able to swallow the tripe that americans feed us. theyre not making many friends in europe at this time and when europe gets its act together and stop bickering between each other, they will stand up to american corporate culture and we might manage to get somewhere

their americanised culture is made so the lads in power can get away with murder. look at enron, George W. Bush was highly involved in that but somehow he wasnt investigated but, someone who tries to do good like bill clinton goes on trial for having an affair something which lots of normal americans do. bush ditched the keyoto treaty, he attacked iraq and hasnt found any weapons of mass destruction, oh yeah i want to be part of the culture that put bush in to power (i think not)

european and infact alot of government systems have alot of faults in them but the choice we have to make is the lesser of two evils do we let america take over globalisation (and probably either mess it up or worse. turn us all into americans) or do we take the bull by the horns and work together and turn europe and the rest of the world into alot of different cultures of people who share technology and information. who dont keep everything classified and spend all their money on military, who try to save the environment. and who dont fight with eachother like babys

globalisation can work but we cant let american influences get the better of us then globalisation will work. im not saying its our way or we'll f uck you if we did that we'd be no better than americans we have to educate them that globalisation means the act of bringing things under international control and not under one countries control

i was probably talking a load of pants so

</rant>

shotamoose

No, globalisation is not the same as Americanisation. But because America is in the dominant position during this era of globalisation (as Britain was in the dominant position in the 19th Century and Rome in a previous 'globalisation' era) it is American interests and American culture that seem to win out more often than others.

I think you have to try to break up the idea of globalisation into the 'natural' part - advances in communications and travel changing the nature of human relationships - and the 'planned' part - liberalisation of trade and finance in a way that suits the dominant powers in the world. One part cannot be resisted or changed, the other part can and should be. The trick is obviously in distinguishing the two, and it's not an easy one.