Comments on: What Does Globalization Really Destroy?

By: Martha

Martha — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 14:01:06 +0000

I am a psychologist, I think globalisation create a broad and open mindset to people.

By: NomadicMatt

NomadicMatt — Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:58:00 +0000

In reply to Martin. Plastic is terrible and needs to be severely controlled! Ruining the world.

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 18 Mar 2019 07:35:08 +0000

Very thought provoking.

I remember having a discussion almost 50 years ago with friend from Canada. he thought certain things were ruining the world. I said it was progress.

I suppose at the end of the day it is a point of view and is not a simple topic.

Good to make people think about our world regardless.

Plastic on the other hand…………

By: NomadicMatt

NomadicMatt — Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:13:54 +0000

In reply to Lazar. Ok? Explain.

By: NomadicMatt

NomadicMatt — Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:13:13 +0000

In reply to Juan Kandler. Interesting points about local chains. Didn't think about that!

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sun, 10 Mar 2019 22:37:10 +0000

I think globalization makes travel slightly worse (by reducing variety), but probably makes life slightly better for the locals. IF I’m right about that, then complaining about it as a tourist is quite selfish.

By: Todd

Todd — Sun, 10 Mar 2019 03:43:41 +0000

Some excellent points and ideas, Matt, and lots to agree with; no culture is immutable, nor should it be. If you don’t mind, I’m going to leave Dunkin Donuts alone for a while, and talk about the language. English is a bit of a mongrel language, having borrowed elements from languages all over the world. And this makes it the hardest language to learn as a second language in the world. However, I can go to the streets of almost any major city, and not have to use a word of their language. Our language affects the way we think, and the way in which we see the world; it helps to shape our thoughts and perceptions. And we are forcing others to in many ways, think like us, through a globalized language. And then we consider them happy to experience our culture through things like Starbucks…. it is no small surprise that this is their new standard, or something they would strive to attain. This continues to lead to a one way spread of culture, but also a one way spread of perspective and outlook. The idea of a changing culture is not a bad thing, but in a perfect world, should merge seamlessly into the existing framework of a culture’s thoughts, ideas and outlooks, rather than supplanting or replacing it.

By: Diana Winkler

Diana Winkler — Sun, 10 Mar 2019 00:32:29 +0000

I agree with one poster who mentioned some of these American companies have questionable business practices. I don’t go to these places in the U.S because of it. I prefer quality over cheap prices. I have French friends who eat at KFC, and I wonder why they would want to eat sub par food in the gastronomy capital of the world. But it’s their choice. I hope I never seen a Walmart outside of the U.S. Walmart has not anything to improve the American life-only padding the CEO’s pockets.The employees get low wages, brands get space on their shelves in exchange for a painfully small profit, while Walmart gets tax discounts that other companies don’t get. Cheap, low quality merchandise has replaced fine quality craftsmanship and attentive customer service.
When I travel, I don’t think all modern progress is bad unless it is harming the locals. Sometimes in a strange place where the food is wierd and you don’t speak the language, a meal from a familiar menu would be comforting. (Especially if you have kids.)But I normally don’t go to American chains overseas unless there isn’t any other choice. Thought provoking article, Matt. Thanks.

By: Jimena

Jimena — Sat, 09 Mar 2019 21:01:22 +0000

In reply to Jimena. Forgot to add! Highly highly recommend reading Bani Amor on travel and colonial legacies. They are amazing!

By: Jimena

Jimena — Sat, 09 Mar 2019 20:43:22 +0000

I think it’s interesting that you bring up colonialism because in the end, as a traveller from the “developing” world, what I think when I see these chains in my own country and abroad is a power relationship not unlike colonialism and yet way more subtle.
The reason why these type of chains abound in “developing countries” is the aspirational idea that what other cultures have to offer is not only different (which say increases diversity) but better. In Mexico we have a word for it: malinchismo. And it means that whiter, blonder, in English and foreign will always be considered better.

You may see say McDonalds or a Dunkin Donuts or a Starbucks, which back home in Boston or NY, aren’t luxury brands but bring them into a developing country and they can be. The reason why it doesn’t necessarily compete with the local businesses teeming with costumers (as you mention) is that a minumim wage worker cannot necessarily afford them, but wealthier people in the country do and will use that as a way to show how cultured or sophisticated or richer they are because they use foreign brands.
A Starbucks or a McDonalds does not replace local business initially, but not unlike in US cities, they start a process of redifining and gentrifying a city neighborhood to cater to more expensive tastes, which eventually reshapes who is and isn’t living and doing business there.

Because of this, when I think when I see these things in my own country an abroad is a HUGE power imbalance between local businesses and transnational corporations. We go around the world and see the same US brands everywhere in every market because well, globalization. But how often do you go to a US or European city and see a business from a developing country thrive? It seems a bit one-sided, and it is because years of colonialism set up developing countries to fail by extracting their resources AND imposing almost exclusive commercial restrictions with the colony.

The cool sides of globalization like travel and experiences and new products are really nice, but it’s mostly wealthier countries AND wealthier people from developing countries who reap these benefits. And we need to recognize it and ACT accordingly. Let’s not kid ourselves thinking that having McDonalds, Dunkin Donuts, and Starbucks will really do much for impoverished communities, and keep justifying a broken system.