The most effective attacks against globalization are usually not those related to economics. Instead, they are social, ethical and, above all, cultural. These arguments suced amid the protests in Seattle in 1999 and more recently in Davos, Bangkok and Prague. They say this: the disappearance of national borders and the establishment of a world interconnected by markets will deal a death blow to regional and national cultures, and to the traditions, customs, myths and mores that determine each country"s or region"s cultural identity. Since most of the world is incapable of resisting the invasion of cultural products from developed countries that inevitably trails the great transnational corporations, North American culture will ultimately impose itself, standardizing the world and annihilating its richness of diverse cultures. In this manner, all other peoples, and not just the small and weak ones, will lose their identity, their soul, and will become no more than 21st—century colonies modeled after the cultural norms of a new imperialism that, in addition to ruling over the planet with its capital, military might and scientific knowledge, will impose on others its language and its ways of thinking, believing, enjoying and dreaming.
Even though I believe this cultural argument against globalization is unacceptable, we should recognize that deep within it lies an unquestionable truth. This century, the world in which we will live will be less picturesque and filled with less local color than the one we left behind. The festivals, attire (穿着), customs, ceremonies, rites and beliefs that in the past gave humanity its culturally and racially variety are progressively disappearing or confining themselves to minority sectors, while the bulk of society abandons them and adopts others more suited to the reality of our time.
All countries of the earth experience this process, some more quickly than others, but it is not due to globalization. Rather, it is due to modernization, of which the former is effect, not cause. It is possible to lament, certainly, that this process occurs, and to feel nostalgia (恋旧) for the past ways of life that, particularly from our comfortable vantage point of the present, seem full of amusement, originality and color. But this process is unavoidable. In theory, perhaps, a country could keep this identity, but only if—like certain remote tribes in Africa or the Amazon—it decides to live in total isolation, cutting off all exchange with other nations and practicing self sufficiency. A cultural identity preserved in this form would take that society black to prehistoric standards of living.
It is true that modernization makes many forms of traditional life disappear. But at the same time, it opens opportunities and constitutes an important step forward for a society as a whole. That is why, when given the option to choose freely, peoples, sometimes counter to what their leaders or intellectual traditionalists would like, opt for modernization without the slightest ambiguity.The most effective attacks against globalization are usually not those related to economics. Instead, they are social, ethical and, above all, cultural. These arguments suced amid the protests in Seattle in 1999 and more recently in Davos, Bangkok and Prague. They say this: the disappearance of national borders and the establishment of a world interconnected by markets will deal a death blow to regional and national cultures, and to the traditions, customs, myths and mores that determine each country"s or region"s cultural identity. Since most of the world is incapable of resisting the invasion of cultural products from developed countries that inevitably trails the great transnational corporations, North American culture will ultimately impose itself, standardizing the world and annihilating its richness of diverse cultures. In this manner, all other peoples, and not just the small and weak ones, will lose their identity, their soul, and will become no more than 21st—century colonies modeled after the cultural norms of a new imperialism that, in addition to ruling over the planet with its capital, military might and scientific knowledge, will impose on others its language and its ways of thinking, believing, enjoying and dreaming.
Even though I believe this cultural argument against globalization is unacceptable, we should recognize that deep within it lies an unquestionable truth. This century, the world in which we will live will be less picturesque and filled with less local color than the one we left behind. The festivals, attire (穿着), customs, ceremonies, rites and beliefs that in the past gave humanity its culturally and racially variety are progressively disappearing or confining themselves to minority sectors, while the bulk of society abandons them and adopts others more suited to the reality of our time.
All countries of the earth experience this process, some more quickly than others, but it is not due to globalization. Rather, it is due to modernization, of which the former is effect, not cause. It is possible to lament, certainly, that this process occurs, and to feel nostalgia (恋旧) for the past ways of life that, particularly from our comfortable vantage point of the present, seem full of amusement, originality and color. But this process is unavoidable. In theory, perhaps, a country could keep this identity, but only if—like certain remote tribes in Africa or the Amazon—it decides to live in total isolation, cutting off all exchange with other nations and practicing self sufficiency. A cultural identity preserved in this form would take that society black to prehistoric standards of living.
It is true that modernization makes many forms of traditional life disappear. But at the same time, it opens opportunities and constitutes an important step forward for a society as a whole. That is why, when given the option to choose freely, peoples, sometimes counter to what their leaders or intellectual traditionalists would like, opt for modernization without the slightest ambiguity.The most effective attacks against globalization are usually not those related to economics. Instead, they are social, ethical and, above all, cultural. These arguments suced amid the protests in Seattle in 1999 and more recently in Davos, Bangkok and Prague. They say this: the disappearance of national borders and the establishment of a world interconnected by markets will deal a death blow to regional and national cultures, and to the traditions, customs, myths and mores that determine each country"s or region"s cultural identity. Since most of the world is incapable of resisting the invasion of cultural products from developed countries that inevitably trails the great transnational corporations, North American culture will ultimately impose itself, standardizing the world and annihilating its richness of diverse cultures. In this manner, all other peoples, and not just the small and weak ones, will lose their identity, their soul, and will become no more than 21st—century colonies modeled after the cultural norms of a new imperialism that, in addition to ruling over the planet with its capital, military might and scientific knowledge, will impose on others its language and its ways of thinking, believing, enjoying and dreaming.
Even though I believe this cultural argument against globalization is unacceptable, we should recognize that deep within it lies an unquestionable truth. This century, the world in which we will live will be less picturesque and filled with less local color than the one we left behind. The festivals, attire (穿着), customs, ceremonies, rites and beliefs that in the past gave humanity its culturally and racially variety are progressively disappearing or confining themselves to minority sectors, while the bulk of society abandons them and adopts others more suited to the reality of our time.
All countries of the earth experience this process, some more quickly than others, but it is not due to globalization. Rather, it is due to modernization, of which the former is effect, not cause. It is possible to lament, certainly, that this process occurs, and to feel nostalgia (恋旧) for the past ways of life that, particularly from our comfortable vantage point of the present, seem full of amusement, originality and color. But this process is unavoidable. In theory, perhaps, a country could keep this identity, but only if—like certain remote tribes in Africa or the Amazon—it decides to live in total isolation, cutting off all exchange with other nations and practicing self sufficiency. A cultural identity preserved in this form would take that society black to prehistoric standards of living.
It is true that modernization makes many forms of traditional life disappear. But at the same time, it opens opportunities and constitutes an important step forward for a society as a whole. That is why, when given the option to choose freely, peoples, sometimes counter to what their leaders or intellectual traditionalists would like, opt for modernization without the slightest ambiguity.The most effective attacks against globalization are usually not those related to economics. Instead, they are social, ethical and, above all, cultural. These arguments suced amid the protests in Seattle in 1999 and more recently in Davos, Bangkok and Prague. They say this: the disappearance of national borders and the establishment of a world interconnected by markets will deal a death blow to regional and national cultures, and to the traditions, customs, myths and mores that determine each country"s or region"s cultural identity. Since most of the world is incapable of resisting the invasion of cultural products from developed countries that inevitably trails the great transnational corporations, North American culture will ultimately impose itself, standardizing the world and annihilating its richness of diverse cultures. In this manner, all other peoples, and not just the small and weak ones, will lose their identity, their soul, and will become no more than 21st—century colonies modeled after the cultural norms of a new imperialism that, in addition to ruling over the planet with its capital, military might and scientific knowledge, will impose on others its language and its ways of thinking, believing, enjoying and dreaming.
Even though I believe this cultural argument against globalization is unacceptable, we should recognize that deep within it lies an unquestionable truth. This century, the world in which we will live will be less picturesque and filled with less local color than the one we left behind. The festivals, attire (穿着), customs, ceremonies, rites and beliefs that in the past gave humanity its culturally and racially variety are progressively disappearing or confining themselves to minority sectors, while the bulk of society abandons them and adopts others more suited to the reality of our time.
All countries of the earth experience this process, some more quickly than others, but it is not due to globalization. Rather, it is due to modernization, of which the former is effect, not cause. It is possible to lament, certainly, that this process occurs, and to feel nostalgia (恋旧) for the past ways of life that, particularly from our comfortable vantage point of the present, seem full of amusement, originality and color. But this process is unavoidable. In theory, perhaps, a country could keep this identity, but only if—like certain remote tribes in Africa or the Amazon—it decides to live in total isolation, cutting off all exchange with other nations and practicing self sufficiency. A cultural identity preserved in this form would take that society black to prehistoric standards of living.
It is true that modernization makes many forms of traditional life disappear. But at the same time, it opens opportunities and constitutes an important step forward for a society as a whole. That is why, when given the option to choose freely, peoples, sometimes counter to what their leaders or intellectual traditionalists would like, opt for modernization without the slightest ambiguity.
The author mentions the remote tribes in Africa and the Amazon to illustrate ______.