Are You Prepared for Saturday's Final Exam?

Ladies and gents, at this point, everyone should have a study guide for each season in their possession for the final exam. You best is to spend some time going through these every night this upcoming week. In case you lost any of them, I will not be making any copies. However, you can pull them all up by clicking here, and going to pages 16-24. Happy studying this week. Whapey awards voting for Season 5 begins tomorrow! Also, get ready for the ALL SEASON WHAPEY AWARDS coming soon!

"Suspicion, Intolerance, and Mistrust are Driving Us Apart"

Queen Rania, the Queen of Jordan, is the epitome of the new generation of progressive minded, forward thinking political leaders that has emerged. The Queen of Jordan (who was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents, earned her Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration from American University in Cairo, and has worked for Citibank and Apple Computers in Amman, Jordan before marrying the then Prince of Jordan) is truly a global thinker without a doubt. Not only that, she is an incredibly eloquent speaker. I have to say, even though I have been a great admirer of hers since I was in high school, my respect for this stunning woman went through the roof this week as I heard about a YouTube channel that she launched taking on Muslim stereotypes one by one. Yes folks, the Queen of Jordan has a YouTube channel! NPR had an excellent story on this yesterday on the show All Things Considered and I just have to share (you can read and listen to the story by clicking here). No doubt about it, one of the unfortunate things that happened in this country after 9/11 was the wave of anti-Muslim propaganda that flooded our media and market. The amount of prejudice that I witnessed everyday with my own eyes was deplorable. The fact of the matter is that the VAST MAJORITY of Arab Muslims are not the enemy and do not wish harm towards the United States. There is a difference between being critical of a country and wishing that country harm folks, a huge difference. Below you can watch Queen Rania's Top Ten reasons she launched her YouTube channel (yes it is a knock-off of what Letterman does. globalization anyone?). This is phenomenal! One the one hand, can you see globalization written all over it? Second, it is so important that Americans move beyond the stereotypes and really take the time to understand the real world and how it spins. I do hope this class has done that for you this year. What Queen Rania is doing here is the reason why I became a teacher and specifically why I teach this class. Education is so key in this new world that we are entering. Thank you Queen Rania for taking the initiative to reach out to the world and instead of waiting for the world to reach out to you. I hope my students (young men and young women) will do the same thing and see you as a the role model you truly are.

"Paradise Now" Discussion Board

So concludes the Season 5 Film Festival. Certainly it ends on a somber note. Although this film takes the viewer right into a Palestinian terrorist organization, for me this film is a call for peace. For me the voice of the Suha was really the voice of the writer and director. This was a plea for the vicious cycle of violence in the Middle East to end. So what did you think? Your thoughts...

Oh and did you notice the large number of Jewish, European, and American names that contributed to the production?

The United States and the World

Since World War II, the United States experienced economic expansion that provided job opportunities for its growing population. This economic growth helped shape a society that became increasingly consumer oriented and remarkably affluent. At the same time, American products, technology, and culture were spread throughout the world. Many American citizens enjoyed the fruits of this prosperity and global trade, and they came to believe that the American way of life, its core values and beliefs, and its culture were good for the world. What Americans saw as sharing the benefits of the good life was, however, often viewed as a new form of imperialism. But rather than taking or occupying foreign lands, as happened in an earlier imperialist impulse, American culture, technology, economic presence, and its military permeated nearly every corner of the globe and seemingly dominated world affairs. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Americans began to question why the country was attacked and why many in the world held the United States in contempt. In the article I would like you to read (by clicking here), Fareed Zakaria, the international editor for the news magazine, Newsweek, offered an explanation of America’s place in the world.

After reading the article, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: How do you think the average SUV owner would respond to this article? What does the author have to say that is positive about the United States? In what ways is he critical? Your thoughts…

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations

The tables that I would like you to investigate (by clicking here) provide insight into world economic relationships, the meaning of poverty, and the nature and size of the gap between developed and developing nations. These statistics were compiled by the World Bank, also known as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, one of many international organizations concerned with alleviating world poverty by encouraging economic development. Founded at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the World Bank soon became affiliated with the newly established United Nations. Using funds subscribed by UN members, it advances loans to nations and private businesses for projects that further economic development. Although most loans at first went for postwar reconstruction projects, since the 1950s the bank mainly has supported loans for projects in developing areas. Since 1978 it has published annually its World Development Report, with commentary on development strategy and statistics on economic, demographic, fiscal, and educational trends. Since 2001 most of the statistical data have been published in a separate volume, World Development Indicators.

As is true with all historical evidence, the data that you will read must be evaluated and interpreted. Take, for example, the category of “Gross National Product per Capita,” a number calculated by dividing a country’s population into the Gross National Product (or Gross National Income), the value of all goods and services the economy produces. Such information gives a broad idea of a country’s overall standard of living, but cannot be viewed as an accurate gauge of the prevalence of poverty. For this we would need further information about how a country’s wealth is distributed. One would expect, for example, that in two countries with roughly similar GNPs per capita, Latvia (which is not included in the tables) and Brazil, the incidence of poverty would be higher in Brazil, where people in the upper 20 percent income bracket receive 65 percent of all income, than in Latvia, where people in the upper 20 percent income bracket receive only 40 percent of all income. Similarly, data on the number of students attending postsecondary educational institutions tell us nothing about graduation rates or the quality of schools these students are attending. Even with these caveats, the information provided by the World Bank can reveal a great deal about how we as human beings live and where we may be heading. You may also find it helpful to navigate through their 2009 report on their website by clicking here.

After reading through the reports, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are the major population trends revealed in the tables? To what extent do the tables reveal uneven development among the world’s major regions? Does the information in the tables suggest that the gap between rich and poor nations is getting larger or smaller? For those nations that have not achieved significant economic progress, what insights do the tables provide into reasons for their lack of success? What information do the tables provide on the relationship of economic growth and environmental quality? On the basis of the information in the tables would it appear that things are getting better or worse for humankind? Your thoughts…

Environmental Issues on Film

Recently, a wave of filmmakers, especially documentarians, have been taking on issues of environmental problems. No doubt about it, (1) the environmental problems that the planet faces now that scientists are talking about every day are REAL, and (2) yes, we have seen entire civilizations wiped out as a result of environmental degradation in this class, have we not? I don't know anyone who has actually done research not conclude that, yes, climate change is a challenging reality we face going into the 21st century. Where the debate emerges is regarding the actual causes. Probably one of the most seen documentaries in the history of the art form is David Guggenheim's 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth in which former Vice President Al Gore takes on the issues of climate change, the causes, and what must be done. Although the film stirred controversy in some circles, it is widely regarded as an important piece of popular research, hailed by the majority of the scientific community, and is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen if I'm being honest. A film that was less controversial and ever so beautiful is Werner Herzog's 2008 documentary Encounters at the End of the World. The film subtly takes on environmental concerns, and all the while takes the viewer to the world of Antarctica, a place that so many of us have never seen before. What is unique about the film for me is that it focuses, not on the animal, but on the few humans that have chosen to live down there and why. Finally, let us not forget one of the most popular films of 2008 that was a hit with all ages that actually contained a very strong and pointed environmental message, and that would be Andrew Stanton's Wall-E. Wall-E is not an entertain cartoon folks, it is a stern warning. Now that the Series Finale is behind us, watch it again, and look for the issues addressed regarding environmental degradation, globalization, and mass consumerism. Trailers for all three films can be viewed below.

The Environment in the 20th Century: A Disaster Story

One of the key issues of 20th century world history involves changes in and anxieties about the natural environment. Human impact on the environment goes far back in world history, and the precedents are important. Agriculture, both in its settled and its slash-and-burn varieties, early involved deforestation and impacts on riverways. Several agricultural societies markedly altered their environments, and some may have perished as a result. Excessive grain growing reduced soil quality in part of the Middle East and North Africa, in some cases expanding desert conditions.

Modern environmental history adds three new factors to the old story of human impact and its frequent heedlessness. The first factor involves the massive increase in population. Handling human wastes, long a problem for some cities, takes on more general proportions. Efforts to expand the food supply, which so far, against some dire expectations, have been largely successful, involve use of chemical fertilizers and additional deforestation. The second new factor is the intensification and expansion of modern industry. Chemical pollutants jeopardize air as well as water quality, affecting rivers, lakes, and soils in many areas. Societies that have pressed for rapid industrialization as a means of catching up with the West have sometimes suffered particular problems, although the United States remains the world air pollution leader. By the 1990s one quarter of Russia was judged environmentally degraded. China, with its growing manufacturing as well as its vast population, was moving into the number two spot in generating air pollutants that cause global warming.

The third novel factor involves the international scale, as well as the extent, of environmental problems. Industry in the American Midwest affects trees in Canada, thanks to high smokestacks that spread chemical pollutants; the Ruhr mining and metallurgical center in western Germany has a similar impact on Scandinavia. International oil shipments recurrently generate ocean spills that affect many shorelines. The general increase in the international production of hydrocarbons is widely seen as raising temperatures worldwide, while global markets for certain minerals and agricultural products, inducing clearance of tropical rain forests, eliminate certain animal and vegetable species while reducing the production of oxygen. By the 1970s, international conferences began to take the global dimensions of the environment into account, and many countries pledged controls. But the tension between local economic expansion and more amorphous environmental criteria promised a long struggle to achieve effective implementation.

The document that I would like you to read deals with the most famous among several disastrous environmental “events” of the late 20th century: The explosions on April 25, 1986, that destroyed a nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl power plant in the Soviet Union (in the region that is now part of Ukraine). The result was an unprecedented meltdown that spread radiation over the whole region, with measurable increases in nations to the west and north. Twenty-six people died immediately; many others were injured and probably still more genetically damaged. Some who died from the explosion had to be buried in lead coffins, lest irradiated bodies further contaminate the soil. The account comes from Grigoii Medvedev, a nuclear expert who had held a high position at Chernobyl in the 1970s. He was assigned to report, and later wrote a book about, the whole catastrophe. In the first passage (that you can read by clicking here; read pgs. 86 and 87), he sketches some eyewitness accounts, and in the second (that you can read by clicking here; read pgs. 238-241) he describes his own visit, with a driver, Volodya, two weeks after the explosions.

It is important to note that this is only one of many examples of environmental “events.” An American chemical company operating in Bhopal, India, suffered an explosion that killed and injured far more people. A Japanese village experienced a series of deaths in the 1970s from chemical poisoning. An obvious question is: What general conclusions can be drawn from these recurrent if scattered events?

After reading the documents, I would also like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What happened at Chernobyl? What were the immediate environmental consequences? Why were initial reactions often casual? How does an event like Chernobyl fit into 20th century Soviet history? How does it fit into world history? Did the Soviet government seem to react vigorously to the disaster? Can and should governments be responsible for preventing such crises? Your thoughts…

Films Taking on 9/11 and the Aftermath

There haven't been a ton of films that have taken on the actual events of 9/11 (of course, it's still a fairly recent event). I was not a fan of Oliver Stone's overly melodramatic World Trade Center. The one film that gets it exactly right, though, is British auteur Paul Greengrass' 2006 thriller United 93. The film follows the flight that was headed towards Washington on 9/11 but crashed in Pennsylvania. United 93 has no known actors. In fact, many of those in the control tower in the film were the actual people in the control tower on 9/11. The film takes place in REAL TIME. It begins when the plane takes off, and it ends as the plane crashes, in the exact amount of time that the horrific events actually took place. In my opinion, it was the best film of 2006 for so many reasons. Many more films have been made about the aftermath of 9/11. Some, like Alex Gibney's 2007 documentary feature Taxi to the Dark Side, have taken on the issues of the ethics (or the lack thereof) of United States interrogation techniques with suspected terrorists. Interestingly enough, the CIA is being exposed by the current Obama administration just this week for the acts of torture that are investigated candidly in this film. Although Afghanistan was the original center of the war on terror, as we all know the war spread into Iraq in 2003 although there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 (as Taxi to the Dark Side touches on incidently). Since then, many films have taken on the major, yet oftentimes ignored, challenges American soldiers specifically face in Iraq. Although there have been several films on the subject, none to me does a better job than the little seen but extremely powerful 2007 film by director Paul Haggis In the Valley of Elah. No film that I know of does a better and more accurate job of explaining the current situation and Iraq and why current events are taking place there like Charles Ferguson's 2007 documentary feature No End in Sight. Finally, we never should forget the horrors and challenges that Iraqi civilians currently face, and the film that does the best job of explaining that is James Longley's 2006 documentary feature Iraq in Fragments. The trailers for these films can be viewed below.

A Response to the USA-Patriot Act

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the federal government moved quickly to toughen national security. More than 1,000 individuals, mostly Arab and Muslim men who were suspected of having some connection to terrorist organizations, were detained and interrogated. Airport security became more rigorous (and soon fell under the jurisdiction of the new federal agency, the Transportation Safety Administration), and a more careful screening of applications by foreigners to travel or study in the United States began. Congress passed the USA-Patriot Act, which authorized law enforcement officials to use broader investigative powers to thwart potential terrorist threats. Such expansion of powers exposes the delicate balance between the need for national security in crisis times and the protection of individual rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Since its creation in response to the Red Scare of 1919-20, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been a staunch advocate of protecting individuals’ rights. In the excerpted speech I would like you to read (you can by clicking here), Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU, offered the following comments about the USA-Patriot Act in a speech to The City Club of Cleveland, Ohio.

After reading the speech, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: For what reasons does Romero believe the climate of opinion and tolerance is different from earlier times in American history? In what ways does Romero believe the USA-Patriot Act is a threat to liberties? What is the proper balance between national security and protecting individual rights? Is Romero’s “provocative agenda” an appropriate course of action in a time of crisis? Why or why not? Your thoughts…

In Loving Memory of the Victims and the Heroes on September 11, 2001

In Honor of the Victims and the Heroes- 09/11/01

George W. Bush Responds to the Terrorist Attacks

Throughout most of American history, the United States has been relatively free of direct military attack or acts of terrorism. The country benefited from this isolation. At the end of the 20th century, the United States was the wealthiest, strongest, and most powerful nation on earth. But some had come to loath the Untied States and its global influence. One such individual was Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi Arabian who had embraced a fundamentalist, anti-modern view of Islam. Enraged at the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, America’s support of Israel, and the spread of American popular culture throughout the world, bin Laden formed an extremist Islamic organization called al-Qaeda (Arabic for “The Base”) to recruit, train, and finance fighters who wanted to strike at the United States. On September 11, 2001, nineteen al-Qaeda members hijacked four passenger jets and used them as suicide missiles in a coordinated attack on the United States. Two planes were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City; within two hours, both 110-story buildings collapsed. The third plane smashed into the Pentagon. A fourth plane, headed for Washington, D.C., crashed in a Pennsylvania field after passengers rushed the cockpit. Speaking to the nation a short time after the terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush offered the response that you can watch below.

After watching the address to Congress, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: Why does Bush give the Taliban an ultimatum? In what ways does Bush commit the United States to a war on terrorism? To what effect? In what ways does America change after these attacks? Compare and contrast President Bush’s remarks with Woodrow Wilson's Declaration of War Message and with Roosevelt's Declaration of War Message. How are they similar? Different? Your thoughts…

International Terrorism

The final decades of the 20th century were filled by periodic encounters with terrorism. These spilled over, massively, to the 21st century when on September 11, 2001, 19 terrorists commandeered four commercial airplanes in the United States and flew three of them into landmark buildings, the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C.

Terrorism is not easy to define or explain. It often involves discriminate use of violence by groups who believe their cause is just but who face opposition from a superior force. The violence often targets civilians, who are seen as legitimate victims as part of a larger effort to challenge and disrupt society seen as oppressive. Terrorist methods often depend on relatively modern technologies such as car bombs or hijacking airplanes.

A large number of modern protest movements have used terrorism. A radical wing of the labor movement used methods that could be called terrorist early in the 20th century. Various small nationalist groups, such as those associated with the struggle over Northern Ireland, used terrorism. Extreme Catholic nationalists used terrorism against England, while Protestant nationalists did much the same against Catholic neighborhoods. European student movements in the 1970s spawned extremist groups that employed terrorism against the established order.

The most widespread terrorism of the late 20th century emanated from extremist Muslim groups, protesting Western activities in the Middle East and Israeli treatment of Palestinians in and around Israel. Pro-Western or simply repressive Middle Eastern governments were also targets. Attacks within Israel, killings of tourists, and acts of violence in Europe, Russia, and the United States made this wave of terrorism a truly international threat. Terrorist groups were typically small and loosely organized. Specific grievances varied widely. But there were some common elements. Use of a radical version of Islam was one, and many terrorists believed they were engaged in holy war. A revulsion against Westernized international styles, including consumerism and new freedom for women, was another. While many individual terrorists came from educated backgrounds, they drew on the widespread poverty and sense of powerlessness of masses of people in and around the Middle East.

The methods terrorists used were scary and widely condemned. But many analysts urged that terrorist motives deserved attention nevertheless, as they reflected real grievances about the power alignments in the Islamic world. It was not clear how terrorism could be dealt with, and some understanding of underlying issues might be crucial in that connection as well. Certainly, international terrorism is one of the leading issues on the global agenda early in the 21st century.

The two documents I would like you to read offer starkly different view of radical terrorism. The first is a 1998 decree, or fatwa, issued by Osama bin Laden, widely regarded as the most significant terrorist leader by that date (you can read the fatwa by clicking here). Osama bin Laden was a member of a wealthy Saudi Arabian family, who had broken with his background to lead radical Muslim resistance. By 1998 he was based in Afghanistan, where a new regime, the Taliban, gave him shelter and support while pursing an extremely intolerant version of Islam. The whole context built upon the disruption of Afghanistan by the failed Soviet invasion of the 1980s, by the ongoing attacks on Iraq and military presence in the Arabian Peninsula by the United States and Britain after the 1991 Gulf War, and by the longstanding tension between Israel and the Palestinians. The 1998 fatwa, a terrorist declaration of war, explains some of the thinking behind this new, unorthodox, and frightening military movement. The fatwa was widely publicized on the Internet, a tool that bin Laden’s organization used adeptly, and clearly struck a chord among a minority of Muslims, particularly in the Middle East.

The second document comes from an October 2, 2001 speech to the Labor Party Congress by Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister (you can read it by clicking here). In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, widely attributed to bin Laden’s organization, Blair emerged as the West’s most articulate spokesperson. [Note that casualty estimates at this point were higher than what turned out to be the case.] Blair explains a widespread reaction to mounting terror, and what might be done against it. As he anticipated, Britain and the United States launched a vigorous attack on terrorist activities in Afghanistan in early October. The war was initially backed by many nations around the world, including, though with a number of cautions, moderate Muslim leaders and most Muslim Americans.

The clash between terrorism and the West is an ongoing chapter in contemporary world history. What is the likely outcome? How much would understanding both sides help in containing this new threat to world peace? What did terrorism and Western response have to do with broader processes of globalization?

Additionally, after reading both documents, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What was bin Laden’s interpretation of Islam? How did it relate to basic Islamic principles? How can international terrorism be best defined? What results did bin Laden expect from terrorist methods? Why did he single out the United States? How do bin Laden’s views relate to the 20th century history of the Middle East? How do they relate to the wider processes of globalization? How did Tony Blair define the West’s position against terrorism? What were Blair’s views of Islam? Can you think of reasonable alternatives to Blair’s approach, in the wake of a truly unprecedented act of terrorist violence? Was 2001 a turning point in world history, as Blair claimed? How does one assess claims like this concerning very recent developments? Your thoughts…

The Final Step Toward Martyrdom

Mohammed Atta was born in a Cairo suburb on September 1, 1968, and died on September 11, 2001, when he flew a hijacked American Airlines passenger jet into one of the towers of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan. The son of a lawyer, Atta graduated with a degree in architecture from Cairo University. He then moved to Germany, where he registered as a student at the Technical University of Hamburg and was employed part-time at a Hamburg consulting firm. Devoted to Islam, he made a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1995, and on his return to Hamburg began an Islamic prayer group. In July 2000 Atta attended a flight school, Huffman Aviation International, in Venice, Florida, and in December went to the Miami area to practice on a Boeing 707 simulator. In 2001 he briefly visited Germany and Spain, then returned to Florida, where he took additional flying lessons. On the morning of September 11 he and another conspirator drove from their motel in South Portland, Maine, to Portland International Airport, flew to Boston, and boarded American Airlines Flight 11.

It was later discovered that Atta had left behind a bag containing airline uniforms, flight manuals, and a four-page document in Arabic, copies of which were also found in the effects of two of the other terrorists. The document is a list of instructions for the terrorists to review on the night of September 10. Excerpts from these instructions can be read by clicking here.

After reading the document, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: How, according to Atta, should the participants prepare themselves for what lies ahead of them? Is Atta totally confident about the success of the mission? What might go wrong, and what can be done to prevent failure? What rewards can the participants expect from their anticipated martyrdom? What feeling does Atta express about the victims of their actions? On the basis of this document, what conclusions can be drawn about Atta’s, and by extension, the other participants’ motives? Your thoughts…

The Season 5 Film Festival Closes on Friday, April 24th with a Screening of Hany Abu-Assad's "Paradise Now"

Well, as this series comes to a close next Friday, April 24th so does the Season 5 Film Festival. One of the major topics to be discussed in our series finale is the issue of terrorism in the 21st century. In my opinion, no film takes on the issue of terrorism in a more balanced, more fair, more honest, and more candid way than Hany Abu-Assad's 2005 Paradise Now. Hopefully as many of you as possible will be able to attend. Paradise Now is rated PG-13, has a runtime of 90 minutes, and is in Arabic with English subtitles. You can view the trailer below.

The Battle of Seattle

In recent decades, globalization has transformed economic and cultural interactions worldwide. While critics view globalization as an attack on traditional values, local cultures, national sovereignty, workers’ rights, and the environment, supporters applaud it for fostering democracy, market economics, and individualism. Whatever one’s opinion, globalization is an inescapable part of daily life. The Internet, cellular phones, Nike, McDonald’s, CNN, Disney, satellite television, and cheap air travel are only a few symbols of the globalized world. While it seems unlikely that globalization will supplant nation-states or create a homogenized world culture, it is clear that it raises important questions about international business practices, labor relations, environmental protection, and technology.

In November 1999, anti-globalization protests at the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle, Washington drew international attention. Established by the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the WTO is an international organization charged with supervising and liberalizing global trade. Because many opponents of globalization criticize it on economic grounds, protestors target the WTO, as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. Ironically, anti-globalization groups use the Internet, itself a tool of globalization, to mobilize demonstrations. Approximately 50,000 people gathered in Seattle to stage a variety of mostly peaceful protests. But violent factions clashed with police who responded with tear gas and rubber bullets. By the time the WTO meeting ended, Seattle sustained more than three million dollars in property damage. Similar demonstrations engulfed meetings of the World Bank and IMF held in Washington, D.C. and Genoa, Italy. When IMF and World Bank delegates met in 2002, they congregated in an isolated Canadian resort in order to avoid additional protests.

In the document I would like you to read, a feature from Salon.com (you can read it by clicking here), David Moberg examines the WTO protests in Seattle. After reading the article, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: How does Moberg describe the atmosphere in Seattle? Who is demonstrating? What are their major criticisms of globalization? What is your opinion of globalization? How do you think that it will change the world during your lifetime? Your thoughts…

Free Trade Is the Answer

The following defense of free trade that I would like you to read (by clicking here) was published in 1998 by four economists connected with the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1916 and named after a St. Louis businessman who was an early benefactor of the organization, the Brookings Institution maintains a program of research and publication on public policy issues in the areas of foreign relations, economics, and governance. With financial backing from dozens of large corporations and private philanthropists, it supports the work of approximately 100 scholars. Centrist and non-partisan, its goal is to improve the performance of U.S. institutions and the quality of public policy by linking scholarship and decision-making.

After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What is the focus of the authors’ arguments? Are there issues raised by Nader they ignore? Conversely, do they make points that Nader failed to mention in his commentary? List and briefly explain the benefits that according to the authors result from free trade. The authors concede that some individuals will experience pain as a result of free trade. How and in what way will this occur? In your view, who has made the stronger argument, Nader or the Brookings Institution scholars? Your thoughts…

The Dangers of NAFTA, GATT, and Free Trade

During the nationwide debate preceding the congressional vote on the North American Free Trade Agreement in December 1993, opponents denounced the treaty’s economic, political, and environmental implications. A leading critic was Ralph Nader, a lawyer from Connecticut who in the 1960s emerged as a prominent consumer advocate when he published the book, Unsafe at Any Speed, about the dangers of flawed automobile design. In the 1970s and 1980s Nader rallied support for a wide range of consumer and environmental causes, and helped found organizations such as the Center for Study of Responsive Law, the Public Interest Research Group, Congress Watch, and the Tax Reform Group. In 2000 he ran for president on the Green Party ticket, receiving 3 percent of the popular vote. The document I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here) was published in an anthology, The Case Against “Free Trade.”

After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: According to Nader, why are multinational corporations so supportive of NAFTA and the new GATT proposals? What will be the economic implications of NAFTA for the U.S. economy, according to Nader? What, in Nader’s view, are the potential political dangers of free trade? Why is Nader convinced that there are “no winners” in free trade? What is Nader’s alternative to an international economy based on free trade? Your thoughts…

McDomination: The Americanization of Global Popular Culture

In his utopian novel Looking Backward (1888), author and journalist Edward Bellamy predicted that by the year 2000, the world would be linked together in a “single planetary consumer market.” As Bellamy saw it, such a global economy would eradicate poverty and want worldwide by making everyone a participant—both as a producer and as a consumer—in government-planned and government-directed industrialization and distribution of goods. To Julian West, the novel’s hero, who had fallen asleep in 1887 and had not reawakened until September 10, 2000, it was a world that had eliminated not only poverty but also national conflicts and class warfare.

Although Bellamy’s socialist vision never materialized, his dreams of a global economy and a worldwide consumer market seemed prophetic to people actually living in the year 2000. Brand names and products such as Nike footwear, Nokia cellular telephones, and Pokémon trading cards and films are perhaps better known to men, women, and children worldwide than the names of the most important global political leaders. As Zygmunt Bauman commented in his book Globalization: The Human Consequences, global commerce and consumption creates “a strange circle whose center is everywhere.”

While many nations and culture contribute products, services, and advertising images to the global marketplace, none has been more successful in doing this than the United States. The near-tidal wave of U.S. exports has raised serious questions about the power of multinational corporations and the efforts of other nations to withstand the American economic onslaught and to protect their own manufacturers—something that Bellamy clearly did not anticipate. The central issue, however, is less economic than cultural: the possible effects of economic globalization on those cultures that consume American products. For a Benjamin R. Barber has explained in his thoughtful book Jihad vs. McWorld, “selling American products means selling America: its popular culture, it putative prosperity, its ubiquitous imagery… and thus its very soul.”

No American corporation has been as successful in its efforts to capture the global marketplace as McDonald’s, the fast-food giant that by 2008 boasted more than 31,000 restaurants in 119 countries and served an average of 30 million customers each day. So pervasive are the company’s trademarked golden arches that one eight-year-old girl from South Korea saw a McDonald’s restaurant while visiting Boston, Massachusetts, and exclaimed, “Look! They have our kind of food here.” The world’s largest McDonald’s (with 700 seats, 29 cash registers, and 605 employees) opened in 1990 in Moscow, while in 1992 the first McDonald’s opened in Beijing, with 40,000 customers being served on its very fist day. Somewhere in the world, three new McDonald’s restaurants open for business every day.

This global spread of American products and popular culture, however, has not been without opposition. Often many people in the West and non-West alike, labeling this phenomenon cultural imperialism, accuse the United States of undermining and even destroying other cultures that allow American products and popular culture to gain footholds on their native soils by eroding their traditions, cultures, languages, and even identities. This resistance thus far has been most prominent in France, where farmer Jose Bové touched off a wave of assaults on McDonald’s restaurants in 1999 and in doing so became a national and even international hero. Although opposition to American cultural intrusion in general and McDonald’s restaurants in particular has been less dramatic elsewhere, there is little doubt that deep opposition to American cultural ubiquity is widespread.

Please click on the following links (Part I and Part II) to view several documents involving McDonald’s global presence and influence. After studying the documents I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: How does McDonald’s give us insight into the globalization of popular culture? Which pieces of evidence help you answer that question? In what ways is the Norwegian tray liner helpful? What other poster does that tray liner bring to mind? Why did Queen Elizabeth II make a brief stop at a McDonald’s restaurant? What did she order from the McDonald’s menu? What is the central point of the London Times story about the queen? How can you explain the enormous popularity of McDonald’s in East Asia, and specifically China? It has been said by some people that in certain places Ronald (or Donald) McDonald is more recognizable than Santa Claus. To whom does McDonald’s market its products? How does McDonald’s marketing strategy in Hong Kong and China explain globalization? What do these sources omit? What do all of these sources tell us about the recent history of the People’s Republic of China? What are the benefits of the globalization of popular (largely American) culture? What are the liabilities? In China, has globalization had any benefits at all? What things have not changed? Many French farmers, led by Jose Bové, saw only the liabilities of the “McDonaldization” of French culture. What are those liabilities? According to McDonald’s, what were the benefits to French farmers? Why did the Bermuda government bar McDonald’s? According to Thomas Friedman, do the benefits of cultural globalization outweigh the liabilities, or vise versa? Where does Thomas Watson stand on that question? The story on Bermuda reported that Bermuda had “struck a blow against American cultural imperialism.” Where do your other sources stand on that issue? To what extent should people preserve their own culture and traditions by keeping out other cultural influences? Are cultures that permit the intrusion of other cultural influences ultimately doomed? What comparisons or accommodations are possible? Do you agree or disagree with those who accuse the United States in general and American commercial enterprises in particular of a different form of imperialism (cultural imperialism)? Your thoughts…

Globalization on Film

In the last few years, films dealing with globalization either directly or indirectly have begun to emerge. Perhaps no other film, at least in my mind, emphasizes how one seemingly isolated event can trigger a global crisis than Alejandro González Iñáritu’s daring 2006 film Babel. A few years before, in 2003, Sophia Coppola very eloquently, yet subtly, delivered her take on globalization issues in her masterpiece Lost in Translation. Finally, it is always refreshing to see an exposé on how indigenous cultures of various countries are being affected by globalization. Niki Caro bravely took on this in 2002 with her film Whale Rider, which dealt with the identity crisis faced by the Maori of New Zealand during this new age of globalization. You can view trailers for all of these films below.

NOTE: The film Babel contains mature content that may be viewed as objectionable to some viewers.

Globalization: Youth Culture and Working for Multinationals

Global contacts have been a factor in world history for many centuries. In the postclassical period, Arab merchants developed extensive commercial contacts, including international exchange of money, and products circulated widely for elites in Afro-Eurasia. In the early modern period virtually the whole world was embraced in some level of commercial exchange. Industrialization added further dimensions, including new technologies that accelerated transportation and communication.

Many scholars believe, however, that the intensive network of contacts that developed from the 1970s onward constitute a really new phenomenon in world history, and they often call this globalization. Some find globalization a good thing, some bemoan the problems and losses it entails, but almost no one argues that something like it is not occurring.

The documents that I would like you to read (you can read them all by clicking here) deal with two aspects of globalization, a shared consumer culture, particularly among young people, with various articles and comments from the early 21st century Internet (itself an innovation from 1990 onward) and the workers’ side of globalization, with interviews with Mexican women workers done by a Mexican social scientist whose work was first published in 1985.

Both aspects of globalization reflect the growing reach not only of communications technology but also multinational firms. The passages on consumer culture reflect the global activities of chains like McDonalds and the ease of listening to and learning about music icons like Michael Jackson (including the legal problems he encountered, with accusations of sexual improprieties) thanks to MTV, CNN, and other outlets. On the worker side: multinational firms seeking cheap labor costs and tolerant regulation of work and environmental conditions, for products to be sold elsewhere, aim at lower prices for consumers and/or higher profits for themselves. In the process they bring factory work to places like China, Indonesia, or Mexico where industrialization is still in process. The second set of readings deals with this phenomenon in Mexico, highlighting the maquiladora industry—factories on the border—owned by foreign and particularly U.S. business. In the passage Mexican women in Tijuana, just south of San Diego and convenient for shipping back to the U.S., describe their conditions. Their comments mirror a larger debate, about whether conditions, though worse than in the industrial countries, nevertheless bring benefits and further promise for the future, or whether they are simply exploitive. Debate also rages of course about impacts back in the industrial world, in terms of jobs lost in the United States and elsewhere.

Debate, in fact, is the name of the game for globalization. Changes not only in work but also in culture raise questions about values being lost, with superficial consumerism replacing meaningful cultural traditions. Are there ways to shape globalization so as to maximize gains without accepting all aspects of the process?

After reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are some of the main features of global youth culture? Do the three documents all suggest the same kind of youth culture? What might be some key differences in the experience? Why are people attracted to global youth culture? What kinds of criticism or resistance might global culture rouse? Why does global culture find greater audience among youth than among older adults? How do maquiladora workers and their conditions compare with those of workers in industrialized societies? Why do multinationals locate facilities in places like Tijuana? What are the main advantages and disadvantages of working for a multinational company in Mexico? Are most workers basically contented or discontented, and why? Your thoughts…