globalisation and colonialism

We live in a global world where globalisation occurs. However, the penetration of the global views (mostly western) has infiltrated into many cultures. Globalisation breaks down many barriers of nationalism. This is contrasted to colonialism which is defined as "the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. " I'd like to discuss how globalisation and colonialism come together.

Colonialism is uncompromising and is forceful. According to Gilbert, "it involves the penetration and restructuring of the cultural as well as physical spaces inhabited by re-conquest populations." Globalisation is no different. Like colonialism, it permeates into a society and changes their cultural values and westernises them. It can therefore be argued that cultures are becoming less and less authentic due to globalisation.

We cannot say that globalisation has only started occurring recently because it has been present ever since the beginning of time. People have interacted with other cultures through travel and intermarriages. However it has not been recognised for what it really is which I consider a form of neo-colonialism.

Economically, globalisation has the same effects as colonialism. State capacity has deteriorated due to globalisation just as colonialism has the same effect. Nations have to adhere to global market forces or else they get marginalised. The loss of hegemony and soverignty is compensated by higher levels of growth. An example of this is the World Bank and the International Money Fund. Both the IMF and the World Bank are owned by white, upper class people who think that they can do a better job of governing the world politically and economically. All of this implying westernisation. There are cracks in the legitimate foundations in the forcing of these organisations. They exploit poor countries because they have no voice. A small group of powerful countries do have a voice and they gain enormously from this through globalisation. For example, the transmigration case that happened in the 1950s in Indonesia; funded by the world Bank. The aim was to move people from Java out into the outer line islands of Indonesia so political pressure would be released. Around 7 million people were moved from the crowded parts of Indonesia. An underlying art of transmigration allows Indonesia authorities to settle in areas that were particularly problematic politically. Part of the goal was to move numbers into these areas in order that they can overcome ethnic resistance to be included in the nation state. One of these nations were East Timor which became known as one of the bloodiest struggles for independence in the latter parts of the last century. This is because the Portuguese abandoned their colonies and allowed them to descend into chaos. The people in East Timor voted for independence which resulted in a blood bath.

This is just one example of structural adjustment of the World Bank gone wrong. Statistically speaking, their figures are very low in terms of success rate. The World Bank is an organisation that aims to globalise developing countries so they can increase their standards of living. However, they don't account for the different standards of living on a cultural level. This is similar to colonialism where westerners come in with a western view point and try to take over the space for their own purposes. Generally, in the process, cultures are lost or diluted.

Globalisation is a western concept. Just as colonialism was.

White Privilege or Non-White Handicap

I have been pondering the term “White Privilege.” Are advantages gained by white people because of their race best classified as White Privilege, or is it more appropriate to label disadvantages suffered by non-White people because of their race a non-White Handicap? The general solution to racism is to treat everybody equally so, to me, this seems to be a fundamental question. As McIntosh states the word “privilege” implies favouritism whether earned or confirmed by birth or luck. It has connotations of being unfairly benefited. Therefore a hypothetical solution to racism could be to remove these privileges and to stop favouring Whites. On the other hand she also explains how White people tend to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative and average which suggests that they are the norm and that the solution to racism would be for anyone not enjoying the same degree of opportunity (i.e. those suffering a handicap for not being white) need to be brought up to their level. On the surface these solutions appear to be the same as they both level the playing field by making the conditions the same for everyone so I will explain them with a practical example. A White person can enter a store and expect to not be followed around or harassed. The same is not true for a non-White person. This is said to be White Privilege. Under the first solution the white privilege is removed and white people are also followed around the shop. Under the second solution this privilege is applied to everybody therefore no-one is followed around the shop. In application the solutions are very different. Which is better? Are Whites privileged or are non-Whites handicapped? The answer is both but as McIntosh alludes to; the challenge to solving this paradoxical situation is not deciding whether Whites or non-Whites are at the right level and whether Whites need to be brought down or non-Whites need to be brought up, it lies in getting Whites to acknowledge their position of advantage, to make their invisible package of unearned assets visible.