Chapter 23, Maya Coffee Farms, WP Article

Chapter 23 compares the differences between global inequality and individual inequality (inequality within a single country) by using three different methods. This chapter was very informative, and each method broke down the various concepts within global inequality and how, depending how you analyze it (positives vs. negatives), can affect the way in which inequality is measured. "True" inequality, as mentioned in the text, is the best way to depict the trend in global economics through the years, because it factors in what the other two methods overlooked: the differences in income from person to person in each country, and the price levels those people face. This information is subject to change overtime as price levels increase and vary from nation to nation. Not to mention the fast growth of nations overtime, as seen with China and India, can greatly impact global inequality and even cause it to decrease.  

The article "Maya Coffee Farms" conveys a real-world example of the "commodity chain" discussed in class where the farmers have the least power. As an alternative to the commodity chain, the concept of "fair trade" is introduced as a way to help improve the development of disempowered producers, such as community members in a Tz'utujil Maya community in Guatemala. In reading about the benefits and drawbacks of this movement, one part that stuck out to me the most was the farmer's trade relationships and prices. Although the trade relationships maintained between roasters and importers, as well as the guaranteed price allow for the producers to live somewhat of a sustainable life, the earnings that these farmers receive are still undesirable and just enough for them to maintain their current standard of living rather than grow and develop. 

The article "The Cobalt Pipeline" addresses the significant global impact that the DRC has on the cobalt trade and the production of lithium-ion batteries. Once again, the reader's are shown the unsavory and unethical ways in which materials for large manufacturers are harvested. In this instance, miners in the Congo, a lot of which are children, are responsible for mining cobalt in dangerous working conditions. Much like other instances we've seen in class, regarding children and/or adult workers being forced to work long hours for little pay, with regular risk of workplace casualties, the companies accused of sourcing their materials from these mines have claimed they were unaware about the way in which the cobalt was harvested. Additionally, many companies when confronted with these accusations either promise that they do vet where the materials for their products come from, or that they will start doing that moving forward. After seeing the exact same story time and time again, with companies claiming they were unaware of sweatshops and child labor and environmental effects of their operations, it's clear that this is a pattern. Unsurprisingly, international companies like LG or Apple do not care where their materials are sourced from, or how they are sourced so long as they can produce their product as quickly and as cheaply as possible. 

Chap. 23

 Is globalization a positive or negative thing, in terms of inequality? Is it making things better or worse? Yes.

Inequality, when looking at the individuals themselves, seems to be an overall negative thing, as the majority of the people are making little amounts of money. On the other hand, countries and their governments are making loads, and the inequalities seem to be going away. The models / concepts the chapter displayed, when looked at individually, without the other ones included, can be seen as either good or bad. The global scale makes it seem like globalization is a very good thing and it's solving issues. But the model that includes the people, and excludes the nations makes it seem like disparity has greatly increased, being weighted by population. The average of one nation could be the same as another, but the spread could be very vastly different;
a population of 1000 has a total income of $100,000, in each country. But country A could have a "top 1%" that makes 95,000 of that 100,000, and the 990 other people make the 5,000. On average, the population is making an equal amount of money, but the outliers are what makes it like that. Country B could have it as everyone making the exact same amount as each other. In both countries, the average income is the same, but there's a massive difference in the population.
If you don't look at all models all together, taking everything into account, then it is impossible to determine whether or not globalization has a positive or negative impact on inequality. Only when someone looks at all of the evidence can they determine. Even then, people will have varying opinions based on their values.

The Maya coffee situation is strange. The fair trade systems in place make it so that the farmers are guaranteed a minimum amount for their production. The price had even doubled! Without context, this looks like farmers are benefiting greatly from the fair trade systems. However, the farmers barely get anything as-is. Double of nothing is still nothing. Farmers aren't making enough to benefit.
The issue gets even worse when you remember that farmers have the least amount of power in the long chain that is the process of coffee making. If a buyer doesn't like the price the farmer set, they won't buy, making the farmer's coffee essentially useless.

Cobalt Pipe. The congo. The conditions of the cobalt mining operations are so poor. The workers have their BARE FEET out. The only source of light they have is a toy lamp. The amount of space they have to work in is barely larger than the top-down directions of a person. The mines in the Congo are also linked to more human rights abuses and even child labor. The mines have kids going down into highly dangerous places, and they work to extract materials to power a phone.

Chapter 23, Coffee, Cobalt

 Chapter 23 focuses on how globalization has made inequality more visible and Chapter 23 focuses on how globalization has made inequality more visible and more complex. As countries become more connected through trade, technology, and communication, people are able to compare their lives to others around the world, which makes global inequality stand out more than before. It’s not just about income either—differences in access to basic resources like education, clean water, and safe living conditions are also a big part of the issue. At the same time, measuring inequality can be confusing because it depends on how you look at it. Some perspectives show improvement, while others highlight growing gaps, which shows that inequality isn’t just about numbers but also about interpretation.

The example of the Maya coffee farmers shows that free trade can provide some stability, especially through fair trade systems that guarantee minimum prices. This can help farmers survive during uncertain times, but it doesn’t mean they are truly benefiting or becoming successful. They still earn much less than those higher up in the global supply chain, which shows that fair trade only partially addresses the problem. It improves conditions slightly, but doesn’t fully fix the deeper inequalities built into the global market.

The Cobalt Pipeline highlights an even bigger issue—the disconnect between consumers and the origins of the products they use every day. Many electronics depend on cobalt mined in places like the Congo, where workers face dangerous conditions, low pay, and even child labor. Because supply chains are so complex, it’s hard to trace where materials come from, which makes accountability difficult. This creates a situation where people benefit from products without fully seeing the human cost behind them. Overall, the chapter shows that globalization connects the world in powerful ways, but it also exposes and sometimes reinforces inequalities that are not easily solved. more complex. As countries become more connected through trade, technology, and communication, people are able to compare their lives to others around the world, which makes global inequality stand out more than before. It’s not just about income either—differences in access to basic resources like education, clean water, and safe living conditions are also a big part of the issue. At the same time, measuring inequality can be confusing because it depends on how you look at it. Some perspectives show improvement, while others highlight growing gaps, which shows that inequality isn’t just about numbers but also about interpretation.

The example of the Maya coffee farmers shows that free trade can provide some stability, especially through fair trade systems that guarantee minimum prices. This can help farmers survive during uncertain times, but it doesn’t mean they are truly benefiting or becoming successful. They still earn much less than those higher up in the global supply chain, which shows that fair trade only partially addresses the problem. It improves conditions slightly, but doesn’t fully fix the deeper inequalities built into the global market.

The Cobalt Pipeline highlights an even bigger issue—the disconnect between consumers and the origins of the products they use every day. Many electronics depend on cobalt mined in places like the Congo, where workers face dangerous conditions, low pay, and even child labor. Because supply chains are so complex, it’s hard to trace where materials come from, which makes accountability difficult. This creates a situation where people benefit from products without fully seeing the human cost behind them. Overall, the chapter shows that globalization connects the world in powerful ways, but it also exposes and sometimes reinforces inequalities that are not easily solved.

4/1

 Chapter 23 discusses how as the world becomes more connected, global inequality begins to be noticed more because people are comparing their lives and incomes to others across the globe. It breaks inequality down into three different types, differences between countries based on their avg income, the same comparison but its adjusted for population size, and then true global inequality, which looks at how much individuals earn worldwide. The measures are each good in their own regard, but they tell different stories, like how inequaility between countries has increased since the 80s, but when population is a factor, it has actually decreased due to fast population growth. Basically, global inequality is still very high, even though it has technically gotten better in recent years.

The article about the Mayan coffee farmers and fair trade was really informative. I thought it was interesting reading about the ways these farmers are exploited by the free market. They do so much work, but receive almost none of the actual profit generated by their work. However, due to contracts and the determined price of the coffee, there is not much they can do to try and get fair compensation for their work. 

Finally, the washington post article about cobalt was a devastating read. I knew that the cobalt mining was bad for the workers, but I had never really read into how truly horrible it is. These people are exploited to do dangerous work and we justify it by saying that the resources are necessary. If the cobalt is so necessary, then these people should be treated better and compensated fairly, but once again, like the coffee farmers, they do all the work but receive almost none of the profit. How can we bear to live with ourselves when children are being used to mine up the resources to make phones, all so we can waste away our brains using them?

Chapter 23, Maya Coffee Farmers, and Cobalt Pipeline

     Chapter 23 largely focuses on how global income inequality affects global markets.  In his explanation of the background of global income inequality, he explains that inequality has expanded far beyond an internal struggle.  I think the third of the three concept is the most important, as its unchanging is a good explanation for global inequality.  Individuals from different countries often don't have the same price levels in their respective nation-states.  Defining countries while adjusting for different price levels is important, as no two countries maintain the same price level for extended periods of time.

    The article on fair trade within the coffee farming community focuses on thee strengths and weaknesses of free trade.  One benefit in which stood out to me was that stable market access is involved in fair trade.  Stability in any sense is highly desired, but especially in this situation in which farmers are looking to make a good living.  However, usually these stable prices aren't beneficial enough to the farmers.  Long term contracts with roasters can lock in farmers, and they have no choice to stay with these longer term deals in order to still make an ounce of a living.

    The WP article highlights one of the parts of technology that almost nobody tends to think about.  Cobalt mining is quite a dangerous occupation, but its seen as necessary in order to run certain devices such as electric cars and smartphones.  The low pay is certainly concerning to me, because such a dangerous and necessary job should pay a substantial amount in theory.  The "creuseurs" must rely on basic tools as well, even though they're traveling dangerous lengths in order to acquire cobalt underground.  However, most creuseurs are desperate for the job anyway, despite only being paid $2-3 on a good day.

4/1/26

 Chapter 23 from the textbook talks about the inequality between countries at the global level and gives examples of ways global inequality can be measured. Inequality 1 accounts for differences at the country level, Inequality 2 looks at the differences at the population level, and Inequality 3 is done at the individual level. What is notable between the three methods is the differences in outcome, where some will show the world becoming more unequal and some showing the world as becoming more equal. It was a bit confusing for me to fully understand the concepts and how the results are achieved, but I have an understanding of how the results are interpreted. 

The article on fair trade with the Maya Coffee farmers looks at how fair trade can come with some benefits, but also some negative effects. Benefits that coffee farms may get from being involved with fair trade is the required minimum pricing, or building a good global network for their farm.​​ The structure of the fair with minimum low pricing is said to be set up so that during times of lower pricing on crops farmers still are able to gain a sustainable living. The thing is that's not entirely true with some farmers struggling to even make ends meet. Another thing that is considered a negative of fair trade is debt that farmers end up facing because of the need to accept large loans from corporations who are supposedly “helping” them. Fair Trade is kind of in my opinion advertised as a way to achieve “economic success” for the producers, but when I look at it I just see it as more of a way for large corporations to gain more cash.

The article looking at the Cobalt supply chain in The Democratic Republic of Congo shows the true cost of our technology we use everyday.The mines where cobalt is extracted are far from humane, full of toxic chemical exposure, risky tunnels, extremely low pay (like a few dollars a day), and even having children working in them. This is an example that shows the global unfairness, people mining these important pieces to products making millions do not receive an even close to fair split in that. It highlights how these poorer regions are manipulated into taking these low wages so the rest of the world can enjoy a product at the lowest price. This leaves people like the miners trapped in poverty as the large corporations become richer and richer.

Ch 23, Maya Coffee, and Cobalt Pipeline

 The main topic of ch 23 was inequality across the world. Inequailty has become more visible since the world has become more connected, since having trade across countries shows what countries have more than others. Now people aren't just unequal in their own country, but unequal on a global scale. Inequailty also isn't just monetary, access to certain resources like water or facilities like schools are unequal in distribution. Unfortunatly, everywhere has inequality, but now we are able to understand where we stand and what we don't have that others have in abundance.

The Maya Coffee farmers show certain benefits of free trade. Rural farmers were able to set a minimum price they were paid for their coffee that allowed them to not go under in times of uncertainity. Due to this, they have stability on the market. However, this is just the minimum they can go, and it's not exactly enough to prosper. They still get so much less than the people selling the coffee to the average consumer. Fair Trade allows them to survive, but it's still not enough to solve the issues of a global market.

The Colbalt Pipeline reveals the disconnect between the consumer and the production of their products. While we enjoy a vast amount of electronics to make our life easier, there are miners in the Congo making barely anything mining in dangerous conditions to get the cobalt for those electronics. Child labor is used in this process, and it goes through so many hands that you have to go digging to find where it even originated from. I love my phone, my laptop, ipad, but sometimes you really need to sit down and actually look at where your products come from, and if you really feel comfortable supporting this.

Ch. 23, Mayan Coffee, Cobalt Mining in Congo

I found chapter 23 very interesting because I like to learn about the statistics behind demography. The first type of measuring inequality takes countries at face value, ranking them by their average income. The second type accounts for weighting based on the population of the countries. The author goes on to talk about the preferred method used by different people based on their perspective on globalization. The people who support globalization prefer inequality 2 because it shows that the nations of the world are becoming more equal. Those who oppose globalization prefer inequality 1 because it makes the gaps between nations seem larger. I think this divide ties back into chapters 76 and 77 from last week, as we talked about the differences in ideology between groups who oppose and defend globalization. As far as what I think, there is no one correct measurement to determine inequality. I think that a combination of multiple statistics is necessary. It is also important to note that over the entire course of human history there is a trend of trying to quantify people and use statistics to characterize them. This is one of those situations where it doesn't work because its just not possible to sum up every aspect of inequality into a single number. It's arbitrary and I think its just a cop out way of grading and solving problems by labelling things as simply as possible.

The article about Mayan coffee serves as a sort of case study for the concepts discussed in chapter 23. One thing that stood out to me was that the author said that even though fair trade had positive impacts on coffee farmers, 83% of them still said that the fair trade price was not high enough for them. I think this is a great demonstration of how some inequality statistics can be misleading, especially inequality 2. In the case of this article, it seems like the inequalities within Guatemala are shrinking because the farmers at the bottom received extra income through fair trade. However, the price not being enough for the majority of the farmers shows how the population weighting statistic may show something that actually isn't. The article is a great example of why inequality approach 3 is more accurate than the other 2. The author sits down with the individual farmers rather than generalizing them all into a group. This best shows the disparities between people inside of the collective, which inequalities 1 and 2 would not show at all.

The article about Cobalt mining in Congo discusses the supply chain of the mineral from the batteries in phones and vehicles all the way back down to the mines in Africa where adults and children alike are exploited for their labor. One line that stood out to me from the beginning was, "Mayamba, 35, knew nothing about his role in this sprawling global supply chain." The flip side of this was companies like Apple being out of touch with the realities of the supply chain, or at least playing dumb about it for PR. This emphasizes once again the differences that cannot be seen on that chart from chapter 23, where it shows the convergence. Convergence implies that the world is becoming more connected through globalization, which is the purpose, however it is not relfected in how things really go. The sides that are supposed to be getting closer and more connected and the producers and the companies who pay for their labor, directly or indirectly. Neither Mayamba nor Apple had any idea they were working within the same chain. There's also an important connection between the case of Congo and the Mayan coffee farmers. In both cases the workers barely make anything, while the industries they work for pump billions into the pockets of those at the top of the chain. However, the Mayan coffee farmers at least have some form of help in their free trade agreement. The workers in Congo do not. They are an example of what it would be like in Guatemala without the collective agreement, which further emphasizes the scale of the problem since the situation in Guatemala still isn't good enough for 83% of the farmers.

CH 23, Maya Coffee Farmers, & The Cobalt Pipeline

Global income inequality becomes more noticeable as countries become more connected, because people are constantly comparing their lives to others around the world. As Chapter 23 explains, globalization increases the movement of goods, capital, and even ideas, which makes people more aware of how others live and how much they earn. Because of that, inequality isn’t just a national issue anymore—it starts to feel global. At the same time though, there are different ways to measure inequality, and each one can tell a slightly different story, which makes it kind of confusing. For example, looking at countries alone might show growing gaps, while focusing on population can make it seem like things are improving because of countries like China and India. In a way, this shows that inequality isn’t just about the numbers, but also about how you choose to look at them. Overall, globalization is making inequality more visible, even if it’s not always clear whether it’s getting better or worse.

The idea of globalization and free trade is often presented as something positive and inevitable, but Maya Coffee Farmers shows that it’s more complicated than that. Free trade isn’t always fair, especially for smaller or less developed countries that can actually lose money under these systems. Because of that, fair trade tries to offer a better option by supporting small farmers and creating more equal trade relationships. At the same time, it doesn’t completely fix the problem, since it still exists within a global system that already has inequalities built into it. In a way, it feels more like a slightly improved version of the same system instead of something totally different. Another issue is that the market for fair-trade products is still pretty small, so it can’t help everyone who needs it. Overall, this shows that even though fair trade helps in some ways, it’s not enough on its own to solve global inequality.

The global demand for technology, especially smartphones and electric cars, is closely tied to serious human and environmental costs that most people don’t really think about. As The Cobalt Pipeline shows, a lot of the world’s cobalt comes from mines in the Congo where workers, including children, deal with dangerous conditions and very low pay. Because of that, everyday devices are connected to a supply chain that depends on exploitation, even if companies say they are trying to monitor it. At the same time, the system is so complicated that many companies honestly don’t even know exactly where their materials come from, which makes accountability harder. In a way, globalization creates distance between consumers and the real impact of what they buy. Another thing is that demand for cobalt keeps growing, so this problem probably isn’t going away anytime soon. Overall, it raises the question of whether technological progress is really worth it when it depends on conditions like this.

4/1/26

Even though chapter 23 was short, it kind of confused me, but I understood the overall message was that state intervention curbs market power. This makes state intervention sound bad, but I think it is desperately needed. Companies need to be held accountable for their actions, and regulations need to be stronger. A quote from this chapter that really stood out to me is, “democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible.” I don’t fully agree with this quote, but I do think we shouldn’t sacrifice democracy or sovereignty for the sake of the market. What a crazy thing to do.

The Mayan coffee farmers article was an interesting read, and is similar to what I’m learning about in my cultural anthropology class right now. I think fair trade has the potential to be an amazing thing, and has already been beneficial, but it needs to be able to accomplish more. It amazed me to read that the fair trade price for coffee was established in 1988 and that the price has only been raised once. Can you imagine if the minimum wage in the US hadn’t been raised since 1988? Definitely some room for improvement there.

The cobalt article was the most thought provoking out of the reading this week. I knew already that cobalt was in a lot of electronics, but I wasn’t aware of the situation in Congo. The fact that miners are working barefoot and receive no help during accidents is definitely a human rights violation. These people are basically left to die. Their humanity is reduced to how productive they can be in the workforce. What frustrates me the most is that companies can’t just stop buying cobalt from Congo. The solution to issues like this  feels like trying to come up with a way to  take advantage of people in the most performatively ethical way possible.

Chapter 23, Maya Coffee & The Cobalt Pipeline

I would say that global income inequality is a bit more complicated than it first sounds, especially now the world is so connected. There seems to be a few different ways to look at it all which is why people don’t always agree. You could compare countries, include how many people live in each country, or you can look at individuals across the whole world. In my opinion, this makes a big difference. For example, I think when you include population size, inequality has actually gone down since the 1980s, mainly because countries like China and India have grown really quickly. Although I would also say that if you look at people individually, inequality is still really high, with a small number of people earning a lot of the world’s income. Overall, I think whether inequality is getting better or worse really just depends on how you choose to look at it.

I think fair trade is definitely a step in the right direction but I would say it’s not as simple as it actually sounds. For example, farmers in the study were guaranteed about $1.21 per pound for their coffee. This helped them keep their land and send their children to school, especially during times when global coffee prices dropped really low . I would say that this kind of stability clearly makes a difference to their everyday lives. However, I also think there are clear limitations. Many farmers said the price still wasn’t high enough to properly get ahead and about 83% said they wanted a higher price for their coffee. On top of that, I think issues like debt are a big problem because farmers often take out loans through cooperatives but in the end actually struggle to repay them. I would also say it’s interesting that only a few farmers actually understood what fair trade is, even though they were part of it. So overall, I think fair trade helps in practical ways, but it doesn’t fully solve the deeper problems in global trade and inequality.

I think the article about the Cobalt Pipeline really shows the hidden side of everyday technology which most people don’t really think about. I would say that while things like smartphones and electric cars seem modern and even environmentally friendly, they depend on cobalt mined in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo and often in really dangerous conditions. For example, the article describes miners, known as “creuseurs,” digging deep underground by hand using basic tools, with tunnels that can collapse at any time. I also think it’s quite shocking that some miners earn only a few dollars a day, even though the cobalt they extract ends up in expensive global products. Another example I found interesting was how children are involved in sorting and washing the cobalt, exposing them to harmful dust and unsafe environments. How is this fair and is it really worth risking children so young? I also thought it’s interesting that once the cobalt leaves the mines it goes through a long global supply chain. This makes it difficult for big companies to track where it actually comes from. Overall, I think this shows that even though technology is advancing, it still relies on systems that are unequal and I think it raises important questions about how ethical these products really are.

Maya coffee farmers, Chapter 23, &WP article

 The E-reserves breaks down the idea of fair trade and explains it as an alternative development by doing research on a coffee cooperative based in Guatemala. this chapter shows how fair trade has many benefits like, stable prices, helping farmers keep their farms, build stronger trade connections with other nations, and allow more money to flow into their schools and other things they need for their country. While fair trade gives benefits, it also has defects that hurt the people participating in it because the prices for anything they try to sell is too low for the people to make a profit on. The prices are so low for what they are selling because there are so many other people trying to sell the same thing globally that the world has too much of that one substance. Since there is an abundance of those materials they cost less to get because it could always be replaced. Since there are sometimes more of a product than they need it's hard for similar products to enter the global market and do well. This chapter also says how the people that are selling good on the international market have no say in how much their product is worth when they try to sell it. Th market decides how much goods sell for, not the producer of that good. Overall this chapter explains that fair trade is good on the surface level for the world, but is not the best system to make sure people of certain nations are getting the money they need to survive. 

Chapter 23 explains that the bigger globalization grows, the more and more people from wealthier countries can see how the people in poorer countries live and inspire changes to help those poorer countries creating a strong sense of global communities where the base thought is that the people in every country should be able to provide for their family without having to worry about how much money they get from their jobs. This chapter highlights the three types of inequality. The first inequality highlights the  difference in wealth between countries regardless of population, and the second inequality is the same thing but taking in account the population sizes of those countries. The last inequality measures the wealth gap between individuals throughout the world. The second inequality has decreased because of rapid population grown throughout the world, but the first and third inequality have remained higher than it should be since the 80s. Since the top 8% of wealthy people holds half of the worlds wealth, inequality 3 remains the biggest inequality within any country, but population growth of some countries are helping that statistic get reduced  only by a small amount.

The Washington Post article does a deep dive into how bad people live in the Congos where they have the raw materials to make things we use everyday and how badly it is affecting the people that mine those materials. People in the Congos mine cobalt so we can use our electronic devices but the effect of them doing this everyday as a job is bad for them. Miners are working constantly with chemicals find their way into their everyday life like in the food they eat and the water they drink. Overall the cobalt pipeline benefits the world because it provides a global commodity and works in cahoots with the global market, but at the cost of the people mining it and everything they use to survive. 

23, Maya Coffee, and The Cobalt Pipeline

     Chapter 23 takes a look at the different types of inequality found throughout the world. I think it's an interesting topic, as to me, inequality all falls under the fact that one person has more than another, but this chapter kind of shows how that isn't entirely true. I found the fact that inequality can be the access to things, like two people may have the same assets, but one person may have access to more things that they can go and get, while someone else may only ever have what they currently have. So just because two because have the same things doesn't always mean they are complete equals in that sense. To me, that was just something that I never really always though about, it was always what the person has or doesn't have, not what the potential for acquisition is.

    Looking at the two articles, it seems they show two sides to how fair trade works. Don't know if that's a good way to put it but I can't really think of another way to say that. The article of the cobalt mine shows a world where fair trade does not exist, leading to this extreme poverty for the works who are forced to work in these horrible conditions. While the coffee article shows a world where fair trade does exist. After reading both of these, it really makes me want fair trade to be used in every scenario, so these people who are forced to work these terrible jobs are compensated for the work they do. I understand this is not realistic, but I would love it if we could force these rich corporations who exploit these workers to pay a fair enough price for the work these people do, even if the market price for the material isn't enough to make up that, there should be a "morality" tax, which is however much it needs to be to allow for these workers to be payed. I understand this isn't realistic, but I refuse to believe there isn't some type of in between. These corporations have enough money to pay more to these people, and I don't understand how these people's greed overtakes their morality in these situations.  

Chpt 23, Maya Coffee Farms, and WP article

 Chpt 23:

In Chapter 23 of the Globalization Reader, Milanovic explores global economic stratification. He does this by examining how money and wealth have been distributed worldwide among all citizens. I learned a lot through this chapter, specifically how globalization can create "winners and losers". Between 1988 and 2008, the global middle class in developing countries faced different outcomes; some benefited while others didn't. This chapter also made me realize that global inequality is decreasing due to poorer countries attempting to reach the standard economic level. Even when global inequality is improving, it can still create ongoing problems, such as resource competition, increasing the chances of conflict. I noticed that the author had also emphasized the idea of "citizenship premium". Citizenship premium is where a person is born, which heavily affects their income and the opportunities they will be offered. This made me recognize that not everyone will be impacted by globalization equally. 

The Maya Coffee Farms:

After reading The Maya Coffee Farms, I learned that fair trade initiatives aid small farmers by securing equal prices and better access to global markets. Personally, I found it fascinating that the farmers in Guatemala had benefited from fair trade through high incomes and strong community organizations. The benefits had also allowed them to keep their land, enroll their children in school, and avoid poverty when coffee prices were at their lowest. Another thing I learned a lot about was fair trade's important limitations. I never knew that even if they raise prices, farmers still struggle with debt because the prices they put are not high enough to fully get them out of a crisis. I was disappointed to see that not all farmers have a say in many of the decision-making processes. This goes to show that power is still unbalanced in global markets. 

WP article:

In the Washington Post Article about the Cobalt Pipeline, I learned a lot about how the Democratic Republic of Congo is closely tied to global demand for batteries. I didn't know that the cobalt that we use in our everyday devices comes from the deep mines in the DRC. I found it eye-opening that the country was extremely rich in natural resources, yet those who mine cobalt work in dangerous conditions and are not part of the wealthy. These workers, including children, are working by hand and without proper safety equipment. They're also putting themselves at risk of tunnel collapses, injuries, and long-term post-health conditions from exposure to toxic chemicals. It's not just the workers who are facing these health risks; communities across the country are being affected by pollution, leading to birth defects. These cobalt pieces that workers are digging up are then sent to China to be manufactured and exported to big nations. 

Chapter 70, 76, 77

 Chapter 70 starts off by explaining that neoliberal globalization is not the only form of globalization and that there are many ways in which globalization can be used for the benefit of all and not just to make the already powerful more powerful. I loved the idea that as corporations globalize it is also important that people’s rights organizations like worker’s unions also globalize as to not let greedy corporations take advantage of international workers. When the unions in different countries are able to team up and work together they are able to get more rights without the corporation finding any easy way out. Women’s rights movements and environment movements also have the added effect of both helping create counterhegemonic globalization and being helped by it too.

Chapter 76 talks more about the divide between those who prioritize globalization and those who prioritize their national identity. Specifically in western countries in recent years (even more now than when the textbook was talking about) the divide between these two parties has never been larger. Over the years their split on opinions has been growing farther and farther apart. Western countries benefit heavily from globalization but this excludes the working class. This group of people have actually been hurt immensely from globalization, mostly because the jobs that were easy to get without a high degree of education or specialization have been outsourced to either other countries or immigrants who will do the same work for much cheaper. I wonder the same questions as the author, how far can and will this continue to go before something snaps and how will we find the middle ground where both groups coexist with each other?

Chapter 77 talks about how connected every country is now because of globalization, war and hate is also so much more easily accessible. Every problem that a nation or only a couple nations has is now a worldwide problem because of how interconnected we all are. I think the quote that the author of this chapter adds makes this issue abundantly clear, “every country has become the almost immediate neighbour of every other country, and every man feels the shock of events which take place at the other end of the globe.”

70,76,77 and Long Journey - Julia C

The chapters of this week showed a sociological side of globalization. First, in chapter 70, Peter Evans argued that the neoliberal institutions that we see as the face of globalization are not the only forces behind this process. Nonetheless, counterhegemonic forces, like NGOs, labor groups and feminist organizations challenges this status quo, questioning the inequality that hegemonic cause, and forcing more global systems. In the feminist cause, they work for better working conditions for women, fair salaries and women's rights. Through global networks, this groups press governments and corporations, and organize to improve quality of life independent of the global regimes. Then, we see that globalization has a lot of bad things to offer, but countering that, there is always good to be done by those who organize to resist. 

Chapters 76 and 77 talk about the bad parts of globalization, and just as we saw in chapter 70 that groups get together to fight for the good, other groups claim to do the same, also unsatisfied with globalization, nationalists. Haidt in chapter 76 argues that the global claim for economic advantages are not the only motivation for people to live, but humans need to feel included, secure, belonging, and then they resist globalization. With globalization rising, the world feels more and more the same, and people fell a sense of losing their cultures and traits. Nationalist movements use this and appeal to a rescue of tradition, taking political advantage of people's fear. It suggests that globalization resistance through nationalism is not about economy, but a cultural and emotional movement, an expect consequence of it. In 77, Mishra deeps this thought, talking about the phenomena of nationalism and anger towards modernity. While some benefit, many feel out of this progress, and sometimes betrayed by the promises of globalization. This sense of exclusion gives power to nationalist anger, leading to extremism and political violence. The author reminds us of other periods of time that the same happened, like the actions after 9/11, where the strange emotions of people became anger and nationalism. 

 Finally, in the Long Journey article, we see social hierarchies and how unequal Mexican society is. This sentiment of being trapped in a position in poverty, lacking ways of getting on the upper classes and a better life. It is necessary to fight a lot more the lower you are, and even so the system can make it harder. The author shows that it is not just the economy, but the social places shape the opportunities people receive. 

70, 76, 77, & Long Journey

Chapter 70 and the concept of "counterhegemonic globalization" shows how the concept of globalization in general can be utilized not just by corporations, but by movements seeking to expand their efforts of social progress. This sort of reminded me of one of our previous chapter about Greenpeace, and their global network of organization branches that span multiple countries. This comes to mind because building an international social movement is rather complex, and as mentioned in the Greenpeace chapter, the organization has to concentrate their efforts on environmental issues specific to different regions of the globe. This is something that I imagine a lot of social movements looking to globalize must take into consideration. Feminist movements, for example, have "wrestled with the contradictions of building politics around the universal language of rights," (552). Due to differing culture norms and practices, feminist issues vary from country to country and from circumstance to circumstance. 

Chapter 76 provided an interesting prospective on the clash between globalism and nationalism. Prior to reading this chapter, I never interpreted authoritarianism in any sort of  sympathetic light. When I think of authoritarianism, I think of overarching governments imposing extreme ideologies and mass control over a population. The author does acknowledge how there are these extreme subsets of nationalists that exist, whom are openly racist and refuse to accept those different from themselves. However, the author emphasizes that the ultimate goal of the generic nationalist is to protect their "group" or their "culture" in society. This of course does not justify any hate or discrimination that stems from the same parties of conservatism and authoritarianism, but it does show in a clearer way to me how a lot of people who consider themselves to be nationalists of their country can end up turning to far-right political parties and to people like Trump.  

Chapter 70, 76, 77, Long Journey from Despair to Hope

Chapter 70 explains that globalization is not just a natural process, but something shaped heavily by powerful corporations and neoliberal ideas. At the same time, it also showed how social movements, like labor and environmental groups, try to challenge these systems by connecting people across countries. One thing that stood out to me was how workers are often treated more like parts of a market rather than people with stable jobs. I didn’t really think about that before. This chapter made me realize that globalization itself isn’t necessarily the issue, but rather who controls it and how that power is used. It also helped me understand why not everyone benefits equally, which connects to the rise of nationalism.

Chapter 76 focuses more on the divide between globalism and nationalism, which is something we still see today with events like Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump. Before this, I didn’t fully understand why nationalism appealed to so many people. After reading, I now see that nationalism gives people a sense of identity, stability, and unity, especially during uncertain times. On the other hand, globalism promotes openness and connection, but can sometimes make people feel disconnected from their everyday lives. This helped me understand that the divide isn’t random, but comes from both economic inequality and differences in values between groups.

Chapter 77 takes a different approach by focusing on frustration. It explains that globalization has not lived up to the expectations of steady progress for everyone. Because of this, many people feel left behind, powerless, and constantly comparing themselves to others. I didn’t realize how much this comparison could increase resentment and anger. The chapter shows that extremism and conflict are often reactions to these feelings, rather than something that appears out of nowhere. This made me understand how important it is to address inequality before it leads to larger issues.

The “Long Journey from Despair to Hope” reading made these ideas feel more real by showing how inequality looks in everyday life, especially in Mexico. The breakdown of society into levels like the “penthouse,” “middle,” and “basement” stood out to me, especially how those at the top are often disconnected from those at the bottom. It helped me understand how people in lower positions can feel invisible or ignored. The reading also showed how globalization can push people to migrate just to survive, even if it means facing difficult conditions. While there are some benefits, like being able to send money home, it still reflects a system that does not work equally for everyone.

3/25

Chapter 70 has more of a focus around the morality of globalization and less of an economic focus. Most of the readings we have had so far have touched on the impact that globalization can have on citizens of different states, but chapter 70 tells us about the important role groups who fight against unethical practices can have. States globally deal with the negative effects of globalization through unfair labor practices, environmental issues, and the list could continue on seemingly forever. One thing globalization can also cause is global change, which many groups are fighting for to better the downsides of globalization. 

Chapter 76 focuses on nationalism and globalism. Nationalism can be dangerous in my opinion with globalized countries, because the belief of nationalism is based around one's country being number one and “the best”. I would see it as difficult to understand why someone who thinks they are better than the rest can add themselves into the global market. Whereas globalism is more open to supporting other nations and the idea of building up together with no self bias. Chapter 77 shows how the origin of globalizations were planned to bring peace and prosperity but due to widespread frustration there has been a rise of nationalism and instability. This is true across all nations that these struggles happened. 

The article talks about how Mexico and how divided the country is economically. At the top where the wealthiest are, all of the power is, and the lower class or “poor” seem to be excluded from any decision making. This really made me think how this is going on in more places than we realize, even in everyday life it seems like the power always comes from “rich” people when there are lower class people with more knowledge of what can be done to help issues instead of only serving one class of people.

 

70, 76, 77, and "Long Journey"

     Chapter 70 focuses on how vital environmental groups are to globalization.  Environmental and other non-governmental groups often give light to major corporations about what they need to improve on, s well as educate the public.  NGO's sometimes have more of a reach for globalization than corporations, and are more critical of problems made by major companies.  They work to keep major powers and corporations accountable, but whether or not they are able to influence major change is another story.

    Chapter 76 gives some good insight about the differing views of nationalist and globalist supporters.  Nationalism is much more of a self-preserving idea, as nationalism relies on the basis that ones own state/nation is superior to all others.  Nationalist ideas are often viewed as racist, as claiming that your group in your nation is better than another.  Globalization differs from nationalism in the sense that immigration is much more encouraged.  While globalization sees immigration as a vital part of growing society, nationalism aims to prevent immigration to preserve their way of life and culture.

    What I found particularly interesting from chapter 77 highlights how the internet can cause fear and be used as an effective marketing strategy.  The internet has made hiding issues a much more complicated problem.  It's similar to what's talked about in chapter 70, in where holding major companies accountable has gained traction and importance in recent years.  It's caused a much larger outlet for those to spread not only global prosperity, but also things like hate speech or other negative propaganda.

    The Long Journey article discuss how Mexico has been impacted by neoliberalism and globalization.  It's a prime example of how funds from the IMF can be either a blessing or a curse.  It shows how the IMF may seem like a good idea in theory, but can be incredibly risky for countries who may not gain the means to pay off the loans involved.  I like how it highlights the incredible disparity between the upper class and the lower and middle classes.  This is almost certainly the doing of the effects of globalization, benefiting the top percent of wealth over the rest of Mexico.

Chapters 70, 76, 77, "Long Journey"

Chapter 70 discusses various topics involving "counterhegemony" labor events that occurred globally. For example, the 1997 UPS strike. The strike itself was caused by the IBT, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. UPS had been known for their major use of part-time / temporary workers. Being a temporary worker means you don't get as much pay as a full-time worker, nor do you get as many benefits, if any. This caused a world-wide uprising against UPS, with the ITF, the International Transport Workers Federation's tagline in their pamphlets, "UPS: importing misery from America." Additionally, the chapter talks about the "feminist movement without borders", in which it is noted that historically, and even currently, there has been a notable amount of discrimination against women in the labor field and global economy. This led to the creation and adoption of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, as well as SEWA, Self-Employed Women's Association. Both organizations target the inequalities and needs of the workers of the "informal sector," being where the jobs are not regulated, nor governmentally monitored. The informal sector makes up over half of the global working population, and primarily consists of those who are bordering, or are in poverty.

Chapter 76, as its author, Jonathan Haidt says in the title, "Nationalism "beats" Globalism." (Sidenote: I got a good laugh at the second sentence in the entire chapter. "the rise of Donald Trump in the United States..." as if the author is saying that he's a force to be reckoned with or something.)

The chapter discusses the recent events occurring in the Western world, namely North America and Europe. It also talks a lot on the subject of immigration, and how it splits the "Nationalists" and "Globalists" further apart. The author of this particular section, Jonathan Haidt, breaks these topics into four different sections. The first section discusses the commonly found trend of the turn from communism to capitalism. This was found in a World Values Survey of 60 countries, and how nearly all of them had followed that path. The survey had found an additional trends in these counties. First, as a country becomes more industrial, there is a shift away from the "traditional values" of the people. Second, as the country becomes wealthier, the people seem to move away from their "survival values" that highlight the securities of one's family. (I tried to paraphrase but the author used the words I wanted to).

The next two "chapters" that Haidt created focus on immigration, and what it brings. Chapter two of Haidt's essay focuses on the growth of the gap between Nationalists and Globalists, and how the topic of immigration had influenced the gap. Nationalists see their country as something that is theirs and is worth keeping unique. Their country is their main priority. Globalists are essentially the opposite. They think "national borders are arbitrary and immoral" as there are countless individuals who are in dire need and their only option is migration from one country to another, seeking hopefully better conditions than they were given. The end of chapter 2 creates a bridge to the next chapter, focusing primarily on the immigration of Muslim individuals to Europe. Nationalists began to panic and say their traditions and cultures were at risk.

Chapter 3 focuses on the perceived racism that was created and spread about the immigration. Nationalist's aversion to the incoming migrants is seen as racist, by Globalists. The Muslim population that is migrating toward the western world poses a "threat" to the national identity of countries, as well as a "threat of terrorism" in the western world.

Chapter 4 acts as a sort of summary, and asks questions about the future of globalism vs nationalism. "How can we reap the gains of global cooperation, while respecting the world's many local and national identities, rather than diluting them?"

Finally, Chapter 77. The chapter begins by providing a baseline for what will be discussed. A brief period of hope that had started after the Berlin Wall was felled in 1989, then the USSR collapse in '91. Things were looking good, and no negativity seemed to be in sight. However, the hope was short-lived, as there were issues almost right after the hope started. Within the span of just two decades, many events had occurred that shot down the hope. All of those events happening in such a short amount of time caused a massive flux of global anxiety and widespread xenophobia.

The E-Reserve reading, "The Long Journey From Despair to Hope" goes over the various "parts" of Mexico. "Penthouse", "Middle", "Lower", and "Basement." "Penthouse Mexico" is where the "24 richest men in the country" reside. The Penthouse section talks about those 24 men having billions of dollars.. The "Middle" section is immediately worse than the Penthouse. In the words of the author, "Middle Mexico survives in the worst possible way: thinking that it is alive." It "has all the disadvantages of Penthouse Mexico: ignorance and cynicism. And all the disadvantages of Lower Mexico: economic instability, insecurity, and loss of hope..." The next "layer" of Mexico, Lower Mexico, has worse conditions. Half of the population is living in "cramped conditions," meaning 3+ people per room, as well as make far less than the minimum wage; in poverty. The residents of "Lower Mexico" are the service people; almost all jobs that one can think of. The author writes, "Lower Mexico has absolutely nothing... but it has not yet realized it." The final layer that the author writes about is "Basement Mexico." Basement Mexico is a historically significant layer, being the start of it all, with all of the distinct groups that made up the "Mexico-before-Mexico."

January, 1994.

On New Year's Day, 1994, Mexico had a major event take place. The Zapatista Army of National Liberation, EZLN, rose up, demanding freedom, and fighting NAFTA. The uprising lasted nearly two weeks, but the EZLN is still fighting to this day. 

The final part of the reading discusses Women, and the even poorer conditions they must go through in the lower parts. Their illiteracy, their salaries, their living conditions, etc. are all far worse than what the rest go through.

In all, the E-Reserve reading discusses the conditions of the various settings in Mexico, and why there is such a push to get out of there as quickly as one possibly can.

70, 76, 77

 70. In chapter 70, the author discusses his opposition to corporate, neoliberal globalization. He also emphasises the importance of transnational social movements. In today’s world, social movements are connected globally. Labour movements, women's movements, and environmental movements are now united from far away places through a common struggle. This chapter argues that globalization is not solely about domination and economic control. Globalization can be harnessed to promote social causes and sustainability.

76. In chapter 76, the author examines the tension between “globalists” and “nationalists” in western democracies. The author ties the recent rise in right wing populism to increasing economic inequality and immigration. He also argues that the conflict between nationalists and globalists reflects deeper moral tensions or differences. While globalists prioritize prosperity and openness, nationalists prioritize loyalty and shared identity. The author asserts that these are not just ideals based in economics or racism, but a psychological need to find security and belonging. He believes this is what is causing the rise of right wing populism. The author thinks to address global conflicts we need to understand the moral motivations behind nationalism and not dismiss them.

77. The author of this chapter argued that the extremism that exists globally today is not a product of religion, but actually a response to the pressures felt by people subject to neoliberal globalization. He argues that the rapid change has intensified economic and social inequalities, and has alienated people from their labour. This has laid the foundation for extremist movements world wide. I agree with this author that the rise in terroristic attacks and radicalization of people generally is, in large part, due to the economic strain people feel from globalized free markets.

Chapters 70, 76, 77, and "long journey from despair"

One thing that stood out to me in Chapter 70 is how the reading pushes back on the idea that globalization is just something that naturally happened because of technology. Instead, it describes what we have now as a kind of corporate or neoliberal globalization that is controlled by powerful groups. That part stuck with me because it changes how you think about the system entirely. The section about workers being treated more like a market than people with stable jobs also stood out, because it shows how little security people actually have in this system. At the same time, the chapter talks about global movements like labor and environmental groups trying to fight back using the same global connections. That made me realize that globalization itself isn’t necessarily the issue, but who controls it. While I don’t support how that power is used, it is interesting to think about what it might be like to be in that position and why holding onto that control might seem necessary from their perspective.

Chapter 76 stood out to me because it explains the divide between globalists and nationalists in a way that connects directly to what we still see today. The reading talks about events like Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump as examples of nationalism pushing back against globalization, which makes it feel very relevant. The part about how wealthier and more secure groups tend to be more open, while others focus more on stability and protection, made a lot of sense when thinking about those events. It also challenged the idea that nationalism is only based on racism, since the reading compares it more to a sense of loyalty to one’s country. Looking at things now, it feels like that divide has only gotten stronger, with people still split between global ideas and national priorities. It made me realize that this isn’t just something that happened in the past, but something that is still shaping politics and society today.

Chapter 77 takes a different tone and focuses more on how frustration builds over time. The part that stood out to me most was the idea that people once believed globalization would lead to steady progress, but that expectation didn’t fully come true. Because of that, people are now dealing with disappointment and uncertainty instead of optimism. The reading also talks about how globalization allows people to constantly compare themselves to others, which increases feelings of resentment. That explains why anger and extremism are becoming more common, because people feel like they are part of a system that isn’t working for them. It shows that this anger isn’t random, but actually a reaction to how globalization has played out.

The “Long Journey From Despair” made these ideas feel a lot more real by showing how inequality actually looks in everyday life. The way it describes Mexico as divided into the “penthouse,” “middle,” “lower,” and “basement” levels really stood out, especially how the people at the top are completely focused on money and economic decisions while ignoring what is happening below them. The description of the “basement” being made up of people who are basically treated as if they don’t even exist was one of the most powerful parts of the reading . It also shows how people at the bottom eventually reach a point where they push back and resist. Looking at all of these readings together, it becomes clear that the main issue isn’t just globalization itself, but the imbalance of power within it and how different groups react to that imbalance in different ways.

70, 76, 77, Long Journey

The chapter reading seems to follow a theme of explaining how other movements and world events can play a role in attitudes and actions toward globalization. Chapter 70 discusses the concept of counterhegemonic globalization, or globalization that works backwards against the dominant powers of the world. Social movements can disrupt the dominant flows of globalization by presenting alternatives or by denouncing the so-called solutions proposed by those dominant powers. The point that stood out to me was when the author explains why the environmental social movements typically gain more success than the labor and feminist movements. Since the other two are so politically interwoven with the goals of globalization, environmental activism gets a clearer lane because they focus more heavily on combating externalities. I think this can be seen in the Greenpeace case we discussed earlier this semester.

Chapter 76 discusses the differences between the nationalist and globalist perspectives on immigration. Globalists support the movement of different people and cultures into an area because it creates a more diverse and strong world. Nationalists strongly oppose immigration because of a racist sense of protecting their culture and way of life. They see the flow of people into their country as a threat. I think the part about this chapter that was most striking to me was the way that immigrants were described almost like a commodity to the larger powers like Europe and the United States. I undertsand that the flow of people into a country ultimately determines said country's globalist/nationalist views, but at the end of the day they are all still people, not just resources. Chapter 77 expands on a lot of the ideas in chapter 76, discussing how globalization and economic policy are directed by anger towards other nations or groups of people. This is extremely apparent in the world around us today, especially since 2001. The actions of few people could influence a nation to take action againts a larger set of people. We saw it with the controversial invasion of Iraq and we will continue to see it in the future. Anger and fear are a resource to powerful nations because they are a way to mobilize or weaponize their populations. 

The Long Journey article discusses the effects of neoliberalism and globalization within Mexico. The author describes the economic classes as if they were levels of a building, with the wealthy members in the penthouse, middle and lower class people below, and then the indigenous populations in the basement. This reflects how the effects of the globalized world only benefitted those who were at the top and could profit from them, while everyone else struggles even more as social classes pull apart from each other. The author discusses true change for Mexico coming from the bottom up, starting with the Zapatistas at the basement level resisting the elites and trying to rebalance the power dynamic in the country. I like the section at the end that discusses the role of women in the movement. It discusses that women are even more marginalized at each "building level," however those in the basement have twice as much motivation to fight back as the men do, making them a powerful force.

Ch 70, 76, 77 + Long Journey

 In Ch 70, we see one of the more positive outlooks on globalization in the class so far, and talks about the strength in reaching beyond country borders and broadening our horizons about the world. Allowing communication between countries brings support to areas in need and helps problems be given important spotlight across the world. This was a nice chapter to read after learning about all the ways globalization causes harm, and this reasoning is what I originally thought of when I thought of globalization.

In Ch 76, it talks about the draw of nationalism instead of globalization. Multiple movements across the globe are based off of the idea of nationalism. People turn to this during uncertain times, because it gives them a sense of familiarity and security. While I personally do not agree with a lot of nationalistic viewpoints, I understand where it comes from, but I hope in the future people realize there can be a good mix between both nationalism and globalization. Even though we've seen the harm of globalization, there are still many benefits like cross-communication and sharing between cultures and people.

In Ch 77, there is a very negative opinion of globalization. The average person feels like they don't get the benefits that the few people with power get from globalization, only getting the negative effects that come along with it. They are getting left behind and start to become angry at those that get these benefits. I also feel this way sometimes, as living in a middle class family in the middle of nowhere Pennsylvannia, I'm getting affected by politicans with anger problems starting wars and making life more expensive while both me and others are just trying to get by. It doesn't feel fair, and it isn't. I don't think cutting everyone off and becoming a closed off country is the answer either, but I wish those in charge of globalization actually had the best intrests of the people below them in mind.

The Long Journey looks at Mexico and how the author (Subcomadante Marcos), sees the levels in the social hierarchy. Those on the highest level do not care for the intrests of those on the lowest levels. Those on the lowest levels have been left behind from globalization, hurting the poor farmers by bringing in large company competition. Unfortunately, this isn't only in Mexico. We see it all around the world, which is something that makes me angry just thinking about it. People deserve to be seen and valued, no matter what their socioeconomic status is. 

3/25

 Chapter 70 introduced me to the term "counterhegemonic globalization” which is basically just globalization with a conscience. I like the idea of moving toward labor as a social contract. Reading about the solidarity between German metal workers and Brazilian metalworkers was pretty cool too. I liked that the chapter discussed the “care deficit,” and how traditionally women perform most of the home labor but get paid for none of it. I think that is something that’s not talked about enough. Reading about the different views on environmentalism was interesting as well. It’s a topic my anthropology class recently discussed. There’s a sort of western or elitist idea that to preserve land and local flora/fauna, you need to let land “rest” and keep people off of it. This is in contrast to the people who live off that land. For example, the Marind people of Papua New Guinea consider the plants around them as members of their own family. These people have farming practices that are entirely sustainable, and believe they as they care for the land, the land cares for them. Problems arose when foreign conservationists designated parts of the land as private and kept the Marind people off of it. This was done in the name of sustainability, but plants on Marind land were more plentiful and grew better than plants on this private land, and having so much land being designated as private actually forced the Marind to people to follow unsustainable farming practices in order to survive. Outsiders think conservation means healing the environment by leaving it alone, but the real conservation is in working in tandem with nature.

Chapter 76 was mostly all information I had heard before, except for the last section. I hear a lot about how patriotism becomes nationalism becomes extremism, but never what to actually do about it, and how to get people on opposite ends of the political spectrum to actually agree on something (and create good policies instead of arguing and getting nothing done). However, it was a little disappointing to read that the strategy is to just police your tone and walk on eggshells with your words so as not to trigger an authoritarian reaction. It makes sense though. If you come out of the gate accusing someone of racism when their main concern is just that they don’t want their day to day lives to change, then yeah, I’d be pretty triggered too.

Chapter 77 was a throwback to my high school European history class. I admit that I, too, have found myself forgetting the connections between the French enlightenment ideas and eugenics, nationalism, and imperialism. It’s easy to feign moral superiority as a liberal when you forget that early liberalism was the starting point for totalitarian ideas.

The e-res article was a powerful read. Referring to “penthouse Mexico” versus “mud Mexico” really conjured an image in my mind about just how absurd the wealth and social disparities are. 

3/25

 The chapters assigned here give a much better and widespread view of globalization than I feel previous chapters have given. These chapters show how people use globalization to their advantage, to fight back against the big corps that use and abuse it. In chapter 70, Evans describes how people use globalization to magnify their local issues without diluting said issues. Efforts like these are what I imagine we would see a lot more worldwide with globalization, if the idea was not so intertwined with capitalism.

Chapter 76 is helping me understand where people who tolerate these nationalists are coming from. Haidt describes how these nationalists see their bloodline and heritage as in danger by refugees and immigration. I have never considered my “bloodline” something that needs protecting, but if someone did have that thought, seeing people from other areas enter your area would be scary and something they would see as worth fighting against. The only thing is, they never seem to have issues with immigration if the person is white or white passing. Even if these nationalists' true concern was protecting their culture and norms, it always extends into normal racism. Also, reading on, Haidt routinely mentions assimilation into a country as a sort of remedy to nationalism. This sounds all well and good, but an issue that happens a lot of the time is, once again, just racism. An immigrant can assimilate, change their values, norms, work on their accent, change their appearance, but they cannot change their skin, and these nationalists are viewing white as the acceptable color. I do think that these nationalists do care about protecting their culture, but they view their culture as something that is unable to be participated in by non white people.

I think chapter 77 best explains how I see globalization used outside of economic gain today. The internet has led people to constant marketing exposure, and the best way to market anything is anger and fear. People with bad intentions use this tactic to spread hate, anger, and fear, by influencing people to constantly compare themselves to others situations. No matter how good my life is, the goal of the internet and social media is to influence me to be angry about something. I think he summed it up best with “Competition, envy, and domination over others have become the essential condition of existence in commercial societies.”

These chapters show a few different sides of globalization, and being entirely honest, I think that if done with good intentions, globalization could have led us into an era of peace not seen before, but unfortunately, as Lord Acton said in the 1800s, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" so the people in power have and will continue to do their best to keep themselves in power, and that includes putting down anyone who they deem a threat.

Chapter 70, 76, 77 & "The Long journey"

 In chapter 70 The author talks about how globalization as we know it today is, just cooperate dominated, neoliberal globalization, but argues that this system of globalization can be changed with counter hegemonic globalization. This type of globalization is where transnational social movements are put in place to make a stronger, more sustainable globalization system. This chapter also shows examples of how social movements helped people that needed them, but while also explaining that these movements face challenges like balancing human rights with cultural norms for different countries, fixing the global inequalities of the North and South. Environmental movements target ecological problems as best as they can while also keeping in mind the things citizens need to thrive. This is gets harder and harder to do the poorer the country is. Despite challenges The author explains that these uniting ideas of democracy, human rights, and life sustainability unite people together and allow them to have a say about what they care about.

Chapter 76 speaks about how the expanding right-wing political view and Brexit show a future problem between globalist and nationalist in wester democracies. A main reason why the globalist and nationalist are at odds are not only because of economic inequalities, but because of the views they have are going against each other. The society that's gaining wealth tend to have more globalist views on life while the poorer societies have more nationalist views that focus on cultural stability, national loyalty, and shared identity. This means that countries that are starting to gain money are more likely to adopt right-wing views about life because those views and policies are how they built themselves up. Immigration is one of the biggest things each side debates about. nationalist believe that the movement of people and cultures are a good thing, while nationalist don't necessarily like immigration because they believe immigration is a threat to social cohesion and cultural norms. 

In chapter 77 Pankaj Mishra argues that modern extremism is not a rejection of modernity or limited to specific cultures, but rather its a result of rapid social and economic changed due to globalization that created these inequalities and weakened traditional structures. These changes made way for community anger and identity based movements that allowed extremist and populist leaders to use the peoples frustration to their advantage. 

The E-reserve reading brings everything together by focusing on progress from an individual point of view, especially within Mexican society and migration. It explains how globalization has reduced demand for small farmers and reshaped the economy, pushing many people to migrate—often to the United States—as a way to survive, even if it means taking low-paying, difficult jobs. The reading shows both the negative aspects of migration, such as separation from family and poor living conditions, and the positive ones, like being able to send money home or save for a house. Overall, it suggests that migration can offer opportunities, but it is also a result of global economic systems that do not benefit everyone equally.

Chapters 70, 76 & 77 and “the long journey’

After reading all three chapters, it seems clear to me that globalisation isn’t as simple as I often thought. For example, Evans’ idea of counter-hegemonic globalisation actually made me feel quite hopeful. He shows that globalisation isn’t just controlled by big corporations but also by people who use it to fight back. For example, workers in different countries supporting each other or global women’s movements pushing for equal rights. I like this perspective because it shows globalisation can be used for good and not solely just for profit. However, I think it must be really hard to organise globally, especially when people’s lives and priorities are so different depending on where they live.

I would say that Haidt’s argument takes almost the opposite view and feels more realistic in what’s happening today. He explains why nationalism is growing, especially in places like the UK with Brexit or in the US with MAGA and Trump. What I found interesting is that he doesn’t just blame racism, he suggests people feel like they’re losing their identity or control, particularly with immigration. I think this is quite important because it explains why some people react so strongly to globalisation. At the same time, I think his argument is a bit risky, because it could be used to justify negative attitudes if taken too far. Although it still made me realise that ignoring people’s concerns probably makes the situation worse especially in the long term as it can cause more uproar. 

Mishra’s text was probably the most powerful but also unsettling. He argued that globalisation itself is creating anger and extremism, especially because it increases inequality and makes people constantly compare themselves to one another. I think this is really relevant today. For instance, social media is a prime example of this. Nowadays people see others living better lives and feel frustrated and it is therefore easy to get caught up on an image of what people think others lives are like. I liked how he pointed out that extremism isn’t just something that comes from outside the West but has always existed everywhere. Overall, his argument feels quite negative to me although also realistic. It suggests that unless global inequality is reduced, this “globalisation of rage” will keep growing.

Overall I think these chapters show that globalisation is not just one thing. It has both positive and negative sides. It can connect people and create movements for change worldwide on both small and large scales. However, it can also divide societies and create tension. Personally, I think globalisation is still important, especially for things like climate change and human rights, but these readings made me realise that it needs to be managed more carefully. It goes back to some of our previous readings with the idea that globalisation itself is not the problem but it is truly how it is managed and dealt with. I just personally feel that if people feel left behind or ignored then it’s no surprise that they push back against it causing more issues for concern. 

The ‘Long Journey’ reading really shows a different side of globalisation and honestly feels quite shocking. It explains how Mexico is split into different “levels” of society, from the rich at the top to the very poor at the bottom, especially indigenous communities who are often ignored  . What I found most interesting is how globalisation and neoliberal policies seem to benefit the wealthy while making life much harder for everyone else. Personally, I think this makes globalisation feel quite unfair because not everyone is getting the same opportunities. It also highlights how this inequality can lead to anger like the Zapatista movement, which shows people won’t just accept being treated this way. Overall, I think this reading makes it clear that globalisation can create serious divisions within countries as well as between them.