Summary:
The author, Pico Iyer, opens the essay with the brief description of a typical morning. This initial description is ladled with various examples of living within a multicultural mecca, The world in this authors eyes, is attaining a level of globalization that once was only dreamt about, Italian food is served casually in a Saigon restaurants, and “burger joints” are popping up all over places like Japan. Reaching further, the greater dispersion of people is noted. For example arab, native to the middle east are one fourth of all newborns born in Brussels. America is the source of most of the adopted pop culture seen around the world.
People are also part of this globalization trending. The author brings to light that cities like Hong Kong and Paris, once a hub for exiles and nomads, are quickly becoming multicultural centers for the world’s people. Citizens of numerous country’s carve out a living in places like Hong Kong, bring with them their own costumes to the mingled with the countless of other people just like them living in the same city. Once this peaceful exchange of ideas an cultures was a slow one. Take for example the ancient Roman Empire that established a silk trade with china at the time. This same thing is happening, but on a much larger scale. Economic forces are driving people together and tearing down nationalistic lines that once divided them. People can travel around the world in mere hours and communicate in just seconds, this type of networking is tearing down the old bears and proliferating change. Countries like Iran, North Korea and other less connected third world countries are being put at a disadvantage in this light and are damaging their futures. America’s new role in this emerging world is not as a military superpower like it has been in decades past, but as a new multicultural superpower, a realm of idea exchanges.
Response:
I liked this article a lot, mainly because it took globalism as a positive idea. Much of what is talked about in these essays deals with the dangers of retaining identity in a global network and here it embraces this new step for humanity. The author points out some points that I found very interesting, such as the fate of third world countries and the role of America in this emerging “global village.” Countries like Iran and North Korea who shut off its people from the western world out of fear are put at a disadvantage. I do not think anyone is qualified to judge whether their determination of western culture as dangerous is correct. Be that as it may, they are with out a doubt but at an educational disadvantage because of it. Emerging technologies in countries like the U.S., Japan, and the U.K. are slow to penetrate the boarders of these countries. I’m not just talking about cell phones and televisions, but also tools for medicine and agriculture. It is no secret that there is a large exchange of idea’s at the collegiate level for many young people, exchange programs and higher learning based activities work to acclimate and shape the young minds of tomorrow. These young people are indeed becoming more unified because of this, however countries like North Korea are left out in the cold with it comes to this. It is not that they are just missing out on the new episode of the Hills, but they are slow to realize the potential of a new gene treatment of Down syndrome.
Another surprising point that Iyer brings to light for me is American culture’s role in the global network. I have been flooded with the idea, and accepted the fact, that American cultural dynamics are absorbed by people around the world, but I had never really given it a second thought until this essay. I have never lived outside of the U.S. so I have never really turned on a television to discover a show that originates from a country that does not speak my first language. I still do not really have a firm grasp on this concept from the other point of view. Personally I choose not to watch a lot of television, the program are always so sad and predictable. While I know that TV is the not only cultural outlet from which American pop-culture escapes, I would hate to see this absorbs by the minds of foreign peoples and used as a template for a global trend.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Lingua Franchise
Summary
The essay opens up with Foran giving a first person account of an encounter he had in south East Asia. The man he was talking to used English as a derivative of his native dialect. There are in fact many examples of these English language inserts through out the Asian world. Foran states “If English is the region’s compromise tongue, default neutral terrain for doing deals and making friends, loan words and hybrid street dialects serve to advance its utility.” Foran goes on to invoke the works of Mark Abley saying that English has becoming a “killer language.” English as a language has become associated with power to a degree. With current globalization factors in effect, less used languages are expected to vanish as their users begin to use English. Foran concluded that English is only really impacting major cities and that the worlds other major languages are in no danger of becoming extinct. Other languages are actually killing themselves by its passive incorporation of English.
Response
Foran’s main argument in this essay is that English has become so globalized as something more than just the language that it is. It has reached a point where it is cut up and inserted into other languages as a slang composition only recognizable by those that live there. I understand this viewpoint and can to an extent see why it is happening. English is quickly rising to be the language of choice by enterprising nations. When the US was a super power and was top of the consumer food chain, countries like china along with many others learned English as a competitive means. Now through globalized communication English is slowly becoming the standard “universal language.” Two people from none English speaking backgrounds can find a lingual common ground in English. From this arises the sporadic slang seen by Foran in this essay. You have two people who learned English two different ways, there is bound to be misplaced syntax in their speech. These common errors are reproduced onto other’s speech dialects, arriving finally at a derivative of the original English version that is something completely unique, and sometimes unrecognizable by an English based culture like our own.
While agree that English posses a threat as a “killer language,” I also believe the extinction of other languages is and inevitable and rather positive outcome. How much better off would the world be if this language barrier were eliminated? The loss of certain aspect of cultural uniqueness is an unfortunate result of such a thing but does this out way what we could gain? An elimination like this would proliferate the movement of globalization even further than it already is. You may be of the opinion that this is a horrible out come but it is what the world is currently moving toward, so it responsible of us as a people to help turn it into a positive light.
The essay opens up with Foran giving a first person account of an encounter he had in south East Asia. The man he was talking to used English as a derivative of his native dialect. There are in fact many examples of these English language inserts through out the Asian world. Foran states “If English is the region’s compromise tongue, default neutral terrain for doing deals and making friends, loan words and hybrid street dialects serve to advance its utility.” Foran goes on to invoke the works of Mark Abley saying that English has becoming a “killer language.” English as a language has become associated with power to a degree. With current globalization factors in effect, less used languages are expected to vanish as their users begin to use English. Foran concluded that English is only really impacting major cities and that the worlds other major languages are in no danger of becoming extinct. Other languages are actually killing themselves by its passive incorporation of English.
Response
Foran’s main argument in this essay is that English has become so globalized as something more than just the language that it is. It has reached a point where it is cut up and inserted into other languages as a slang composition only recognizable by those that live there. I understand this viewpoint and can to an extent see why it is happening. English is quickly rising to be the language of choice by enterprising nations. When the US was a super power and was top of the consumer food chain, countries like china along with many others learned English as a competitive means. Now through globalized communication English is slowly becoming the standard “universal language.” Two people from none English speaking backgrounds can find a lingual common ground in English. From this arises the sporadic slang seen by Foran in this essay. You have two people who learned English two different ways, there is bound to be misplaced syntax in their speech. These common errors are reproduced onto other’s speech dialects, arriving finally at a derivative of the original English version that is something completely unique, and sometimes unrecognizable by an English based culture like our own.
While agree that English posses a threat as a “killer language,” I also believe the extinction of other languages is and inevitable and rather positive outcome. How much better off would the world be if this language barrier were eliminated? The loss of certain aspect of cultural uniqueness is an unfortunate result of such a thing but does this out way what we could gain? An elimination like this would proliferate the movement of globalization even further than it already is. You may be of the opinion that this is a horrible out come but it is what the world is currently moving toward, so it responsible of us as a people to help turn it into a positive light.
“Family Values” by Richard Rodriguez
The following is a brief summary of the content of the essay “Family Values” by Richard Rodriguez. The author opens the essay on a personal note, describes himself as a middle-aged homosexual man outside of his parents out in San Francisco, California, who is about to go inside and explain to his parents that he is in fact gay. The idea of ‘family values’ is introduced through talking about its use among the Republican Party and its use and definition pertaining to the large population of immigrants living in America. The author moves to outline that the understanding of the world family values takes on very different meanings based on the country of origin. He explains that the American idea of ‘family value’ is on in which the children leave home, live on their own and learn ways to make themselves distinguishingly different who their parents are. America is a country that stems from ideas that question authority and breaking away from the idea that who you are should not always represent where you came from. The author goes on to explain that if America its self were to be attributed with a gender it would most definitely be male; it is a country built on ideas that strength and independence are among the most dear ideas one can master. Feminism and its every changing battle ground stems from this idea of a masculine America. 50 years ago the woman’s place was at with the family and not at the work place, now it has changed to question whether these same women (who have jobs) should feel obligated to fulfill mothering aspect of a family. The homosexual member of any group or family is always presented as the caring and emotional type, never mind who they actually are or what they want, because they have ‘chosen’ to be gay they have endowed themselves with these clear universal qualities; this being a stereotype registered by our current society. The author’s closing ideas concern the inner workings of a family, he states that in his experience it is the gay couples that are most happy. They have learned to toss aside all social expectation for a relationship, because they apparently fulfill none. All the while paying homage to the standardized family values which rejects them by their marriage. Family trust is what is breaking in America, children don’t care about their parents like they do in other cultures and we hide secrets out of fear of rejection by out families. The author closes again on a personal note again saying that he finally does walk through his parents’ door.
The Author makes some harsh and very realistic points in his essay. I personally feel that the observations made concerning the detachment that children and parents feel is very real in America. However looking to other cultures as a reference (i.e. Asians and Hispanics) is wrong in its approach to logic. Turning back to what the author was beginning to summarize midway through the essay about American culture being one that rejected authority and did things its own way from the very beginning; there is no way we could assimilate another cultures view of a family value system. I believe in some respects that the American family system is very progressive, its faults are more highlighted but that is only because of the open nature of our society. At one point the author was describing the story of his friend from Asia who came here and discovered his gay side. The author left that story on a low note saying that the young man expected the arrival of his family and he did not know what to do. Later he returned to the Asian understanding, saying that they are a very family oriented society and we envy them and their teamwork, which has paid off. The author both praises and refutes the asian cultural version of family in those two points. The families are more tightly knit, this is true, but it is an even bigger deal to disgrace a parent by acknowledging you are their gay son or daughter. There is no room for error, and it is unrealistic, they are closely tied based on a web of ignorance, because they do not address the real problems felt by the family. Women there do not always feel the same pressure of independence the American women are urged to embrace. Overall the point I’m trying to make that it isn’t fair to compare family values because no problem is address the same way in every culture. Open mindedness and acceptance, which were points he tried to emphasize at the end of the essay are the important component of any family value system.
The Author makes some harsh and very realistic points in his essay. I personally feel that the observations made concerning the detachment that children and parents feel is very real in America. However looking to other cultures as a reference (i.e. Asians and Hispanics) is wrong in its approach to logic. Turning back to what the author was beginning to summarize midway through the essay about American culture being one that rejected authority and did things its own way from the very beginning; there is no way we could assimilate another cultures view of a family value system. I believe in some respects that the American family system is very progressive, its faults are more highlighted but that is only because of the open nature of our society. At one point the author was describing the story of his friend from Asia who came here and discovered his gay side. The author left that story on a low note saying that the young man expected the arrival of his family and he did not know what to do. Later he returned to the Asian understanding, saying that they are a very family oriented society and we envy them and their teamwork, which has paid off. The author both praises and refutes the asian cultural version of family in those two points. The families are more tightly knit, this is true, but it is an even bigger deal to disgrace a parent by acknowledging you are their gay son or daughter. There is no room for error, and it is unrealistic, they are closely tied based on a web of ignorance, because they do not address the real problems felt by the family. Women there do not always feel the same pressure of independence the American women are urged to embrace. Overall the point I’m trying to make that it isn’t fair to compare family values because no problem is address the same way in every culture. Open mindedness and acceptance, which were points he tried to emphasize at the end of the essay are the important component of any family value system.
Technology Won’t Feed the World’s Hungry
Summary:
This essay by Anuradha Mittal was subjected toward the problems surrounding the use of genetically engineered food. The essay opens with a discussing about the first world treatment of the hunger epidemic sweeping the globe. Mittal says that that citizens of these first world country are too consumed with notions concerning the safety of their food and issues of biodiversity in ecosystems that they over look the glaring fact that less fortunate people around to world are going hungry. The more privileged could be doing more with what they have to insure that these people’s suffering is eased. Genetically engineered food that would produce higher yields and be more nutritious by containing vitamins are not being grown out of fear that they are dangerous. The problem seeps onto international food organization that lacks the competence to deliver food to where it is need. The poor in some of these country’s are left to starve all the while food is rotting away because they cannot buy it. The farmers in these countries are hurting too because if they lower their prices then they cannot support their families, so they are resorting to less ideal means of caring for their families. In short the people of these countries are given to option to starve to risk eating this unsafe food. The true cure to hungry here is not laid in the hopes of these genetically engineered crops but with the hope for social change; that is the true answer to these problems.
Response:
I don’t come from a very extensive farming background but a majority of my family did and I believe this essay is lightly lacking, even though I agree with its finally assumptions about change being the answer. Here in the United States, genetically engineered food is grown and consumed daily. This is achieved through two avenues; selective interbreeding and molecular manipulation. We consume crops that were produce from both. With out such innovation in agriculture we would not have the consistent and plentiful crop that we enjoy. Drought would take a stronger effect, along with plant disease, and mineral depleted soul, causing sever lose in crop. I think that innovation like this can in fact act as the answer to many of the world hunger situations. American enjoy genetically modified foods all the day and yet some third world cultures still consider in unsafe on the premise that it is unnatural and that things have worked fine for centuries and change is not need. However with the emerging hunger epidemic balancing on the world stage, people like this cannot afford to retain their superstitious speculatory beliefs in science. I may be biased in this regard because I am a biochemistry major, but I think it is fair to say that over the past years science has made greater leaps than we can hope to achieve through social change. It stops being a question of what is “best” and converts it to address what is “possible.” Social change is possible but hoping to achieve it before countless others die is asking for belief in a fairytale. Seed that can produce higher crop yield can be delivered and planted within a month; this is tangible and realistic solution to the problems. This would lower the price these crops by increasing supply, and by virtue of the dogma of economic science we could expect to see a decrease in consumer demand. This translates into lower price for food so the poor can afford more of, it more often. Ruling out the idea that these genetically engineered plants can do harm is irresponsible but I believe the use of at least the cross breed plants is a very real and very natural method of achieving better crop yields. The jury may still be out concerning plants that off the unnatural additive of things like vitamin A, but even so I think it is better to live 20 more year before dying than dying next week. The hardest part in all of this is getting the more valuable seeds of this higher yielding crops to the farmers of these impoverished countries. They are more expensive than the native variety; the global community should be concentrated on delivering these seeds to these farmers, regardless of the cost.
This essay by Anuradha Mittal was subjected toward the problems surrounding the use of genetically engineered food. The essay opens with a discussing about the first world treatment of the hunger epidemic sweeping the globe. Mittal says that that citizens of these first world country are too consumed with notions concerning the safety of their food and issues of biodiversity in ecosystems that they over look the glaring fact that less fortunate people around to world are going hungry. The more privileged could be doing more with what they have to insure that these people’s suffering is eased. Genetically engineered food that would produce higher yields and be more nutritious by containing vitamins are not being grown out of fear that they are dangerous. The problem seeps onto international food organization that lacks the competence to deliver food to where it is need. The poor in some of these country’s are left to starve all the while food is rotting away because they cannot buy it. The farmers in these countries are hurting too because if they lower their prices then they cannot support their families, so they are resorting to less ideal means of caring for their families. In short the people of these countries are given to option to starve to risk eating this unsafe food. The true cure to hungry here is not laid in the hopes of these genetically engineered crops but with the hope for social change; that is the true answer to these problems.
Response:
I don’t come from a very extensive farming background but a majority of my family did and I believe this essay is lightly lacking, even though I agree with its finally assumptions about change being the answer. Here in the United States, genetically engineered food is grown and consumed daily. This is achieved through two avenues; selective interbreeding and molecular manipulation. We consume crops that were produce from both. With out such innovation in agriculture we would not have the consistent and plentiful crop that we enjoy. Drought would take a stronger effect, along with plant disease, and mineral depleted soul, causing sever lose in crop. I think that innovation like this can in fact act as the answer to many of the world hunger situations. American enjoy genetically modified foods all the day and yet some third world cultures still consider in unsafe on the premise that it is unnatural and that things have worked fine for centuries and change is not need. However with the emerging hunger epidemic balancing on the world stage, people like this cannot afford to retain their superstitious speculatory beliefs in science. I may be biased in this regard because I am a biochemistry major, but I think it is fair to say that over the past years science has made greater leaps than we can hope to achieve through social change. It stops being a question of what is “best” and converts it to address what is “possible.” Social change is possible but hoping to achieve it before countless others die is asking for belief in a fairytale. Seed that can produce higher crop yield can be delivered and planted within a month; this is tangible and realistic solution to the problems. This would lower the price these crops by increasing supply, and by virtue of the dogma of economic science we could expect to see a decrease in consumer demand. This translates into lower price for food so the poor can afford more of, it more often. Ruling out the idea that these genetically engineered plants can do harm is irresponsible but I believe the use of at least the cross breed plants is a very real and very natural method of achieving better crop yields. The jury may still be out concerning plants that off the unnatural additive of things like vitamin A, but even so I think it is better to live 20 more year before dying than dying next week. The hardest part in all of this is getting the more valuable seeds of this higher yielding crops to the farmers of these impoverished countries. They are more expensive than the native variety; the global community should be concentrated on delivering these seeds to these farmers, regardless of the cost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)