Neo Liberal Globalization

The last reading of the semester pertains to Neo Liberal Globalization. According to David Held and associates, cosmopolitan democracy is another potential challenge to Neo Liberal Globalization, by reforming the globalization process on all scales, small and large. Although viewed as Euro centric in nature the theory lacks so to say real world accommodations accounting for what's really going on. This leads to three problematic consequences and one critique to interpret the period in which NeoLiberal Globalization is occurring. In the article the term Globalization is defined by as an ever expanding system relying on one another. A second part to the definition is effects of "spatial-temporal" conditions, or the effects of organizing society.
The term Globalization originates from the term Globalism, or the belief that everything is in unison. Neo Liberalism and Neo liberal globalization seems to be one of the only other rational solutions to economic problems. This term again viewed by critiques ranging from local to national. One example of this is public speech, where throughout"speech" and "action" and a response incites a new way to organize society compared to that of government. Another aspect that makes up Neo liberal globalization is the freedom of speech and private property rights which some Authoritarian states prevent, but this serves as an example to relate to no "private property" as a key component. This article eventually eludes to the fact that Neo liberal globalization strengthens the elites, decreases the middle class, and impoverishes the already poor. Basically serving to continue separating society in a different way. It also has its advantages such in European health care, but its cons out weigh its pros's. Ne liberal Globalization seems to open up a alternative network in society by other ways of organization. As for any form of Globalization it has it's perks and downfalls, allowing for new possibilities while limiting others. I find it interesting that our society claims to be one thing such as democratic but implements many forms of social organization. I cannot see that all factors of this theory would ever be implemented in the United States or other European countries, but the possibility of combining local and national reforms in organization and government would be more likely. What do you think?

Trans Nationalism

Throughout this weeks readings we encounter transnationalism and post nationalism. The focus of my writing will be on transnationalism as I feel i have a better understanding. Transnationalism incorporates capitalism. In other words it follows the potential to find non exploited markets for sources of economic wealth. This draws on inter dependence of people from across the world, although not equally. A key aspect in transnationalism is globalization. Globalization has many advantageous qualities. Globalization allows for goods from one state or country to marketed in others while still retaining it's own natural "feel" or cultural domain. The article goes on to discuss Americanization, the film industry, and cultural imperialism like McDonald's who have restaurants locations all over the world, which use catchy commercial and advertisements to apparently distract the consumer from their true wants. The one view that is however left out is not commonly looked at is what it provides instead. The cultural aspect may be distorted in Capitalism, but it also bring together people from everywhere, and encourages growth as if one major producer of a product would fall another would rise to take it's place. One main point of the article is that so to say the antiquity of culture is being lost in globalization as displayed as examples given through media and film. They use such references as Hollywood to distort and portray a different history in which some nations reject, yet as many are lured into as a false truth. I found this article particularly interesting because I feel the question really being addressed here is change and globalization upon a free market centuries after the making. It has both its good and bad connotations, but at this point we need to focus on the good and improvements, any thoughts. This article was fairly difficult to piece together at certain points, so I may have misinterpreted a little.

Leo Africanus : The Journey Ends

After a forty year grueling adventure taking Leo all around the world he finally settles down with his new wife and family while heading toward Tunis. The last few chapters of the book continue with Leo in Rome and in hospitable care of the Pope. The pope persuades Leo to take a new wife,Maddalena, whom is pregnant and also a convert. Although, somewhat reluctant Leo is blessed with his first son. The pope, Leo once benefactor passes on and is replaced with a pope less than interested in art, beauty, and "non-believers." Leo is confronted several times and urged to make leave from Rome as it's aura is changing. Painters, sculptors, and many others take refuge heading toward Tunis or Naples.
Leo one day before his plan to leave Rome with his wife and child, he is imprisoned by the Pope for having a phamphlet ridcolouling the pope. Leo is imprisoned for a years time until his is released by the new Pope, as the old one fell ill do certain poisons. Generally, one misfortune bestows another and his other wife and daughter who waited for him patiently, finally gave up and left for Persia. I find this point particulary interesting too, as i know that marriages at the time were arranged and the man was allowed to take more than one wife, yet i didn't realize that the wife had the choice to leave. He is sent as an emissary of the Pope where he encounters his life long almost brother, Hasan the Ferret, now working for the Grand Turk. After attempts to get the Muslims and Christians to live in peace were over, Leo traveled around with Givivanni in the Black Band, until Givivannis death. One interesting view point you get through Leo travels is how much religion was used as a hope and as a will to impose rules and restrictions. The pope at one point imprisons Leo. In today's society I have not heard of case involving religious figures imprisoning anyone. It seems that religion in that day had as many believers as people exploiting religion for some monetary or political gain. One more interesting point that is only seen differently from a first hand account, is the rise and fall of nations such as Granada. Coupled along with the the routes in trade that separated many, again, because of religion. My question for everyone is if religion was not used as a divider for many nations how would the World System be different overall?

Leo Africanus Reading 3

This weeks reading of Leo Africanus brought some important aspects only obtained through first hand account. Leo is cast out for two years due to Hassan's the Ferret murderous act. This allows Leo time to go to Egypt, more particularly Cario where he left a house to watch over. He quickly finds himself adapting to the way of life. He encounters his up and downs along the way. He eventually is taken to Italy in which he officially changes his name to Leo. He was captured by the Christian pirates and is taken to the Pope and presented as a lavish slave so to speak. The pope and Leo become close and have many discussions.
One item of discussion that i find particularly interesting in the incorporation of religion and state. I guess it is very much related to technological advances, but at the time they felt the plague was caused by the "Most High." Today we know that the disease is cause by a virus. Also how religion was used to incorporate conquests known as "Holy Wars." Again, today if a country like USA were to declare war supporting religious conquest as it goal, we would have utter chaos,yet the states or Monarch's governing convinced millions to do so. It still amazes me to see the depth that religion is tied into how the state governs over the people. They seem to utilize it as a strategic tool of governing rather than a omniscient being. My question to everyone is, what steps or changes occurred for split of religion and state?

Leo Africanus Commentary

The book “Leo Africanus” by Amin Maalouf focuses on typical life in Grenada during the 1400’s. This book, however, is fictional and viewed through the eyes of Africanus growing up. The firsthand account of life during this time period allows for comparative insight on subjects concerning women, alcohol, civil war, and cohabitation of faiths. An interesting part found early on in the book, is Leo’s father, Muhammad, and has extra marital affairs with a Warda, a slave girl. His wife and cousin, Salma, could do nothing about it either compared to this day an age where such an act is socially unacceptable. This really opens my eyes in the differences and rights women have come to acquire since the 1400’s. Also, the importance of carrying on a family heir or legacy is also shown by the numerous cases of married men having relations with slave women.
Grenada proceeds to enter a civil war after war is declared on the neighboring Christian empire with no hope full outcome. Eventually, the Grenada is separated into two warring regions between the Sultan and his son. This personal account even gives a view when dealing with revolts as in “Age of Empires,” chapter twelve. It is later told of Grenada’s eventual defeat by the hands the Castilians by the use of siege equipment, cannons, and time.
Alcohol at the time is still sold, yet illegal. The cohabitation of so many different languages and business transactions amazed me. It is possible for such religions to exist with one another, yet in Granada the Castilians sought to recapture Granada and convert it populants why? Granada is referred to a large city which is hard to supply when not in times of war, so did the Castilians capture Grenada for religious aspects, or purely conquest?

Rise of Nationalism

The rise of Nationalism came about from 1880 to 1914 with a reformation for what was typicaly associated with nationality. Nationalists sought to keep socialist and liberals out along with aggressive expansion of state. The rise of democracy allowed a shift in nationalism to a term for any group seeking form its own independent state, which amassed a shockingly high amount. The perfect time for nationalists, people who identify themselves emotionally with “their” nation’ and to be politically mobilized in which could be politically exploited,” as I will show later. Thus Nationalism became a political force. Nationalism in this era had four characteristics. The first characteristic is nationalism and patriotism became associated with political movements. Second and third was national self determination and full state independence. The last characteristic is a nation tended to be characterized by ethnicity and by larger part language. Why did rise of nationalism become necessary?
Nationalism was used in a high degree to stop revolutionary agitations. They government needed a way to unify the state into a “nation-state.” This was done a variety of ways such as turning civilians into police, firefighters, postmen, and more. Essentially acting as ever watching eyes for the government as communities evolved from “villages and kin, perish and barrio, gild, and con-fraternity” this allowed the government a way to counter subjects non loyal to the state. Monarchies even went as far as to adopt this new sense of “Nationalism” by exchange of royal family members and adoption of their nationality to appear closer to their ruled subjects. This allowed for less internal turmoil. This is not the only reason nationalism became essential as economic advancements in technology and education came about.
Secondly, the technology in this era coupled with education, at least literacy created a fruitful economy. Oral communication started to breakdown as an influx of migration took place. Education met loyalty as it taught students how to be respectful citizens and subjects of the state. Thinking back to my orginal question what made nationalism necessary, ones view point may be it provided a way to unify everyone, with schooling, and more specifically an official public language. There were however, several unofficial languages which could not compete with the official language, so there was no government to stop “private life.” Nationalism provided more than just educational as it served as way to assimilate several cultures.
Nationalism also became necessary in a way to assimilate cultures. Assimilation did not come without prejudices of skin color and “culture friction.” Nationalist reformed “nationality” so to speak as a network of personal relations, at least regarding migrants. It served as a way to allow new migrants to adapt to life in the new world through means of nationality ties such as Irish, or Germanic.
It is clear throughout the reading of Chapter Six, Nationalism has many meanings and regards from ideology of nationalist movements to a broader appeal of Nationalisms. Nationalism came about from Democracy as a way to solidify a state into a “nation-state.” Three prime reasons nationalism was necessary was one to quell Revolutionary agitations through means of civilian government workers. The economic advancement in technology and education led to an official public language. The third reason is assimilation of different cultures into one nation by allowance of private life aspects to carry on in a new environment. Nationalism was made necessary for a unifying bond between state and nation to occur. My question to anyone is had nationalism not “blew up” in this era what may have replaced it?