Thought this might be relevant... 

Reuters article on China hacking the New York Times

Our Neighbor: Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada

The About portion of the Canadian government site:
http://www.canada.gc.ca/aboutcanada-ausujetcanada/menu-eng.html.

http://www.canadahistory.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/01/canadians-amused-by-american-threats-to-move-north-if-their-candidate-loses/

Power Shift: From US to China?

China: A "smart" (or sneaky) power but not a super power -- yet (do they want to be one?).
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-china-to-overtake-us-as-worlds-biggest-assh,17277/
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/02/01/exclusive-eric-schmidt-unloads-on-china-in-new-book/

Side note: What does the super power do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2m3bI52dww  (In Korea)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhDSoAGoJJE (In Taiwan)

On the other hand, conservatives seem to be paying more attention to "Obama's bowing to dictators"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/04/13/conservative-media-continue-tired-obsession-wit/163106

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obama-bowing-to-foreign-dictators--and-his-golf-game/2011/12/08/gIQAvANkfO_blog.html


More from Mahbubani on the West's Own Undoing: Inability to recognize the "structural weaknesses in the core value systems and institutions" --

• Budgetary discipline is disappearing
• Low savings and investment rates
• The work ethic is eroding, while politicians delude workers into believing that they can retain high wages despite becoming internationally uncompetitive.
• Leadership is lacking -- any politician who states hard truths is immediately voted out.
• Individual freedom -- great idea -- e.g., slavery ended. "But freedom does not only solve problems; it can also cause them." Since 1960, the US population has increased 41% while violent crime has risen by 560%. 

The U.S. public opinion on foreign policy
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/01/28/is-obama-out-of-step-with-america-on-foreign-policy/

Reflection on his view about China being "smart": It is a "good" or "bad" government?

There's still hope.

The New China = ?

http://cn.nytimes.com/article/opinion/2013/01/30/c30tijuana/en/

Smart power, Chinese style

I thought the author made the United States seem almost childish in the beginning, noting how remarkable it is that there is little tension between the US and China and and still back-handing the Americans, saying this is a product of China, which has overcome Washington's "tendency for incompetence."

What's funny is right before that, the author suggested this may be an "objective study."

Smart Power, Chinese Style

This essay was anything but objective.

It makes America look like a selfish, incompetent child in relation to other nations and then tries to make us feel better by stating during the very last few lines that we can change for the better. The latter hardly seems like the point of anything when all the while, the essay glorifies the Chinese and their steady rise to fame and fortune. Very, very rarely does the author offer America any sort of positive feedback throughout the essay, if at all.

While I can agree that a lot of times, America doesn't always seem to have the best interests of anybody other than itself in mind, the examples didn't seem to take into account the issues America was facing at the time with terrorism and war. America was under pressure. A few missed meetings sure put up a bad front, but there were other priorities at home to consider. Any other nation would have done the same to protect its people.

The quote from Stephen Johnson of the Heritage Foundation, however, well highlights how America is a tad bit paranoid with its diplomacy, making contracts and restrictions so that if anything goes wrong, it will be in a position of power to act upon it. China, being able to "bargain on the spot without a lot of caveats" sort of just tells me that China rushes into things quickly and, in a sense, leaves itself vulnerable to unfavorable circumstances when dealing with other nations.

Throughout the entire essay, China is painted as a hero while barely touching upon any of the negative qualities that run as rampant there as they do here. This can be seen when the Sino-Japanese relationship is discussed and yet still the author tries to pass the strained relationship as something bad, sure, but something that the Chinese have at least striven to keep under control for the oh, so pure purpose of inter-connectivity.

Perhaps I'm taking all of this a little too personally.

Smart Power, Chinese Style

"It is odd: America is one of the most open societies in the world, yet when it comes to listening to the rest of the world or understanding the views of others, America instead resembles a closed society."

On our own land, we still struggle with understanding other cultures and accepting them into our lives and our invented realms of the "American world." On a global scale, then, I think it is only fitting that we still have trouble listening and understanding the rest of the world.

One thing I found very interesting was China's rendition of the word "crisis", the combination of the Chinese characters for "danger" and "opportunity", while the English definition doesn't hint at the positivity of opportunity in these moments. The Chinese interpretation may also explain why "each time a new problem surfaces, China looks for the advantage in it, assuming that it must adapt to the world, not shape the world as it wishes."

Although Mahbubabi's criticism of America's faulty geopolitical and decision-making competence was accurate in many ways, I believe we make some decisions that proud citizens agree with and think are very necessary.

China and the U.S.

-->

I think there are a few reasons why China is seeking a larger global presence but is not seeking to become a world superpower. Firstly, it is human nature to want to improve and continually move forward. I feel that in order for China to grow as a country, improving their environment and working conditions of their people, they would do well to be put on a metaphorical “global pedestal”.

China has made an effort to learn from the mistakes of other world powers. Part of China’s goal to become a world presence has made them focus extensively on analyzing other countries' failures and learning from them. Thus, within the past decade China has gone from being a closed society to being a global helping hand, improving their image around the world, including with the U.S.

“Each time a new problem surfaces, China looks for advantage in it, assuming that it must adapt to the world, not shape the world as it wishes. America believes the opposite.”

Mahbubani argues that “the international political of the 21^st century will for the first time in human history constitute a system that is simultaneously global in scope and less than wholly western in character. The decisions that affect the world can no longer be made in a few Western capitals, as new cultural and political perspectives are entering the scene.” I think this is a reflection of how technology has brought the world together and brought third-world countries into consideration. More and more, geopolitical decisions will be discussed by world powers other than the U.S. An eastern influence will become present. I also think that as our generation grows into a group of professionals who are more socially and globally aware than their baby boomer counterparts, they will be more comfortable making these decisions overseas as new cultural and political perspectives come into play.

And while the chapter was decidedly biased in its assessment of the U.S. during 9/11 and the crisis-swept years that followed, I don’t think Mahbubani is completely off-based when he criticizes the U.S. for its foreign affairs policies during those years.

“American never misses and opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

I think it is natural for a country that wants to improve their image to take an opportunity to do so if they can.

The United States and China with Japan in Between

This article touched on and/or hinted at something that I think will manifest itself boldly in the future; Japan will be the middle-man between U.S. - China passive aggression as the two economic bubble begin to butt against each other all across the world.

My understanding of the situation is something like this:

As the article described, Chinese-Japanese relations are about as bad as any two global powers could have it. Contrary to Western perception (as embodied by our classification of people: Asians), Chinese people are about as different from Japan in their culture, identity, and way of being as they are from Americans. At least, that's what I think. On top of that, Japan has a pretty lengthy history of murderous crusades into eastern China. Both sides are deeply instilled with a profound distaste for the other.

And, on the other side of the ocean, Japan-U.S. relations are defined intensely by the outcome of the second World War. I don't want to discount the more than half century of unique Japanese development after the American occupation ended, but I do believe that much of modern Japanese foundations are laid upon terms enforced during the years of American occupation.


Just in case your curious, here's the American Occupation of Japan on Wikipedia

The United States maintains a huge military presence in Japan and still receives war reparations. The point: Japan is firmly on the American side by force of forced tradition.

Even if China's soft power buys the all hearts of Southeast Asia, the United States will never lose Japan. As Chinese hegemony surges over its borders (as seen in the last months of East and South China Sea territorial disputes), Japan will be one of the main instruments of the United States.

Here are some examples of  news headlines:
US and Japan Carry Out Joint Air Exercises
China Assails U.S. Over Alliance With Japan
China Warns Japan on U.S. Defense Pact
Japan - US Stage Military Drill
China Questions US Role in Koreas

Etc...

China vs. U.S.

I think this chapter was quite one-sided and harsh toward to the U.S. But, I also haven’t agreed much with our choices in regard to foreign policy. I remember tweeting the Presidential Debate, and both candidates kept saying how they are going to go after the bad guys and make sure that the U.S. is a strong global power. Romney at one point said that he didn’t see our influence growing and that he sees the Middle East as a rising tide of chaos. Both candidates said they wanted to promote freedom. At the same time though, we like to be the police of other countries. This attitude is demeaning and patronizing. It is very inward thinking.

Therefore in this light, I agree with Mahbubani when he says the political planning in the U.S. is for four years or the next presidential cycle, whereas the Chinese make long-term plans, 50+ years down the road. It does concern me though, how China was the country that helped the U.S. gain the UN resolution, making the invasion of Iraq legal…

The U.S. seems to always have short-term self-interest in mind when it comes to agreements and trade. I think we do put too many restrictions and stipulations that it causes the opposite of economic sovereignty for countries. So, in this regard, we should be more like China and really look out for other countries’ interests. However, I think China is too soft in this regard by not demanding environmental policies and human rights.

However, if China doesn’t want to be a superpower and seek global interdependence, then why are they choosing to become so powerful and influential? Like Mahbubani said, China is a closed society with an open mind. Granted I don’t know much about the life of a typical Chinese, but I feel that China should focus on taking care of their own people in terms of freedoms and pollution more than geopolitical influence. Also, what about China’s control over Tibet? 

Smart Power, Chinese Style

• Mahbubani says that there is surprisingly no tension between America and China. I'd have to agree with that, I suppose. But there is, I believe, tension (or at least some type of rivalry) between American and Chinese people. Americans typically believe that Chinese = genius, and this creates a divide between the two cultures. Also, this may be a completely ignorant comment, but I think Chinese people are sneaky! They don't express themselves like Americans do, Facebook is banned in their country (what?!) and they're Communists (which, historically, automatically means that they are untrustworthy). I also had a really bad roommate experience with a Chinese girl, so I'm probably biased.
• Three of Xiaoping's seven guidelines are: "conceal our capabilities and avoid the limelight... keep a low profile... strive for achievements." This basically sums up my view of Chinese people in general, so they seem to be doing a good job! I agree that these are why it is  "difficult to describe Chinese successes, because the Chinese themselves say so little about them."
• When Mahbubani talks about how American diplomats aren't the best and brightest (like those of China), I immediately connected. There are way too many jobs in the United States that just have the "wrong man for the job," but there is one in particular that I have a problem with. I love my future-teacher friends, and most of them are adequately prepared, but there are a lot of teachers who really confuse me as to how they were ever qualified to teach children, the future of our country. I blame these problems on our poor public education, but how are they going to get fixed when bad teachers are constantly being put into classrooms?
• "American diplomats live and work in fortress-like compounds" - Well, especially now after the attack on the U.S. diplomacy in Benghazi, Libya.
• "Obtaining any kind of assistance from the US requires compliance on a battery of restrictions." - It would be nice to just help countries out, but we live by "If I do that for you, then I have to do it for everyone else, too." We believe in contracts because we like rules and don't want to get jipped. What's wrong with that?
• "Western incompetence has provided significant opportunities that China has been able to exploit without paying any serious political price." - Ouch.
• "It is amazing how solid and stable the sino-american relationship has become" - I will refer back to an earlier statement: Chinese people are sneaky! I think I may just be a conspiracy theorist, but if I were China, I would play nice with America (my biggest threat) for the time being, at least until I've gotten strong enough to be the world's absolute superpower. Because if I'm not nice to America, they'll get suspicious, and I can't have them snooping around. (Maybe I watched too many Scooby-Doo cartoons as a kid...)

*Most of what I write has a sarcastic undertone, so please don't think I'm anti-China!

The image of Amerca worldwide

So many critical minds in class! Let's rewind a bit.

Statistics tells!
 
Europeans vs. Americans: Even with shared cultural roots, their values differ.
(How about American vs. Canadians?)

How do people in other parts of the world view America?
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?topic=1

Use of military force/Unilateralism
http://youtu.be/-23kmhc3P8U



Religion
Individualism
Cultural Superiority
Homosexuality


Younger generations share similar values. Why? Has Facebook played a role?

What do you mean by "progressive"? What kinds of ideas are more "progressive"? Why?

Anti-Americanism Down in Europe

I believe Wike is correct in assuming that the values gap is shrinking in some areas, especially so with the coming of age of the younger generations. I can see within my very own family how this is true. While my parents are not so accepting of same sex marriage and hold their nationality to be above all others, my siblings and I are the complete opposite. I wonder if this difference in values occurs because of the completely different ways and circumstances we were brought up in.

For example, most of my ideas and values were shaped by the things I learned in school and the things I was confronted with both in and outside of it -- which wasn't much as I grew up in a time of peace. My parents, however, grew up in times of war or immediately after where propaganda was rampant and patriotism to one's country was absolutely essential -- where the man was a "man" and the woman was a "woman."

In certain aspects discussed where Americans and Europeans differ, I am confused and at a loss. Perhaps this is the way I was simply shaped, molded out to be, but I don't understand how most Europeans can believe that "success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control." It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it's because I am "American" and have been raised with the opposite mentality all of my life where success means striving for a goal and doing everything you can to obtain it, where your failure is determined by how much you alone have yet to sacrifice for your goal.

After reading Wike's article, however, I wonder if this mentality, if this particular form of individuality, is "correct" or if there is even a correct way to think in this respect at all. It has made me view myself in respect to other lands and wonder if my values and ideologies are as right as I was initially led to believe they were.

To Understand the Anti-Americans

How many people frequently use an adjective crafted to describe all of the people that dislike you? For example: anti-Dylan. 

I believe that something has gone wrong with our place in the friendly international community when this word "anti-American" has been accepted as a part of our vocabulary. Have other nations or communities arrived at the point where they must author such a word so as to easily make quick reference to "all the people who dislike us."

In fact, we never hear about anti-Chinese or anti-Norwegian. Granted, we are here in the United States and most of our discourse focuses on ourselves, but the point I wish to make is this:

The fact that we now have this word to use means that we have become to accustomed to hurting other people, making them angry, and disregarding their opinions, beliefs, values, or even rights.

We commonly refer to anti-Americanism, but rarely support real conversation in order to decipher why the sentiment even exists. Its not as mysterious as the news would have people believe; there exists a finite (albeit quite long) list of actions taken by our nation and habits of our people which have and now continue to upset people all across the world, but we don't even know (or care) what they are.

Because of that, we now have this word to make quick reference to all those people.  If we want to fix the problem, we have to care to understand why. We must accept that other peoples are competent adults and stop treating the world as if we were one grown-up amongst children.

People in Denmark live by the American Dream, not Americans

The idea of the American dream and meritocracy is still very prevalent in our culture. It seems like behind every speech whether political or for an award acceptance, the story of someone pulling themselves up from their bootstraps is interwoven within the speech if it’s the opener itself.

Americans are very focused of themselves and need instant gratification. We believe that people who make it deserve it and those who don’t make it, deserve it as well. I think this cultural idea is what has placed us socially behind other countries. We focus too much on ourselves and our beliefs and don't consider other viewpoints. I think this is why we still argue about homosexuality and religion.

This view transcends into our health care system and welfare. Every developed nation has some kind of national or universal health care, but us. Yet, We spend the largest GDP on healthcare expenses. We tend to view it as a privilege and not a right.

Richard Wilkinson, author of The Impact of Inequality, focuses on inequality and the faults of the American dream. http://www.ted.com/speakers/richard_wilkinson.html

Anti-Americanism Down in Europe, but a values gap persists

I found this article to be very informative and easy to read and appreciate the use of heavy statistical comparison to paint a comprehensive picture.

The article suggests Americans and Europeans continue to disagree on a variety of things — identity, religion, military force, homosexuality — but that the gap continues to close.

I wonder if it's remotely important at all for this gap to close. Why is it a big deal? Shouldn't we celebrate the absence of a worldwide group-think? I don't know if I necessarily see one side as being better, with superior ideas. Is the gap closing a product of globalization and increases in technology? We certainly don't seem as far away to the rest of the world as we used to. Or is it something else?

Anti-Americanism Down in Europe, but a Values Gap Persists

I found the data from this article very useful, and I believe it gives us an accurate picture of the persistent differences and cultural status between America and Europe.

The data revealing a shift in American opinions from 2007 was interesting, especially the decline of American's view of their own cultural superiority. This could be a sign of Americans becoming more aware and knowledgeable of other cultures and the true status of their own.

Richard Wike's analysis of younger Americans is evidence of a changing nation. As he said, "if these trends continue and expand to other topics, the transatlantic values gap could someday vanish," but he foresees for now that the divide will persist.

A change in Europe's anti-American views from the Bush-era and a comparison of our contrasting views is noteworthy and important in analyzing world views, but I wonder how important people think this gap is and why.

Youth's Perspective Aligns with European Views

-->

First of all, I'm finally able to (b)log in! (Pun intended.)

Second of all, I think that it is ridiculous to look at history four years at a time, and then be disappointed that there hasn’t been more change. It takes an extraordinary amount of time for people to truly change their views on what are considered “controversial” institutions in our society.

I think that president Obama’s election and reelection have drastically changed how the world views our nation, as it signaled a public, proud and poignant end to the racist genocide we carried out within the past three hundred years. European countries were able to see that are not only changing, but also capable of change. However, because of our international image of a unilateralism, military views on social institutions such as religion and homosexuality, I think it is normal that they remain weary of the U.S. The only progressive part of our country is our demand for democratic nations around the world.

I think the article made a good point in noting that the younger generations are promoting a more and more progressive view, and older beliefs will eventually die out. I think this is partially due to the fact that Americans did not think of themselves as “regressive” until the social media phenomenon that has changed the world in recent years.

This country was founded on the principle that people would have sexual, religious, and civil freedom. I feel that some Americans still do not fully understand the extent of those foundations.

Anti-Americanism Down in Europe, but a Values Gap Persists

• "Obamamania" - I like it. Very accurate, both domestically and internationally.
• I think our "go it alone" attitude stems from our nation's history. The United States was fed up with British rule and took matters into its own hands. We're pompous because of it, and ever since then, we've approached foreign relations with the same mentality, and it generally works out well for us in the end. Why don't they try something else? Well, why fix something if it isn't broken?
• I have several European friends and I know that none of them are terribly religious, but I always kind of assumed that it was just because those are the type of people I tend to attract (as friends). It's good to know that Europe isn't quite so intolerant of non-believers because I definitely feel like I'm put up for persecution everytime I don't participate in the prayer before Thanksgiving or Christmas dinners. Latino countries are similar to the United States in that being religious is a part of everyday life - for everybody. Maybe it's just a "New World" thing. Europe was once extremely religious - I guess we need to evolve a little bit more to get to where they're at now.
• I'm going to refer back to American history for the subject of Americans believing "that everyone be free to pursue life’s goals without interference from the state" instead of "the state play an active role in society to guarantee that no one is in need." This country was built by people who valued working hard to get what they wanted (aka, capitalism). Typical Republicans prefer the former ideal, and typical Democrats prefer the latter. The Democrats seem to be gaining more popularity (as opinions shift) and surpassing the amount of Republican voters, so we seem to be shrinking the values gap in our very own country.
• I like that Wike made the connection between Europeans and young Americans. I think that this resemblance (or acceptance) comes from the popularity and perseverance of the Internet, particularly Facebook. We're allowed to connect with other cultures so much easier, we see the differences between our culture and theirs, and we think, "Why the heck are we so backwater?" We want change.
• This is completely (well, not completely) irrelevant to the text, but every time I think about the difference in values between Europeans and Americans, I think of an old family friend. Europeans are big on inheriting culture and history, whereas Americans don't really care as much. When our family friend found out that my family was selling our property to move on to bigger and better things, he was furious because he believes that a piece of property should stay in the family for centuries. He stopped talking to us after we moved.

Vision of the Future: The Rest of the West

Thesis: Domination by the West in military, economic, political, and intellectual spheres during the past 200 years

"Western populations have been subjects of world history while the rest of the world have been objects."

Q: According to the author, the influence of the West is mos visible to someone who has traveled between cultures. Are we taking such domination for granted?

Anti-thesis: Globalization (interdependence -- economic, environmental, and demographic); the end of Western domination (not civilization)

Q: Is this sad?

Q: According to the author, the Third World should welcome globalization. What's your attitude toward globalization?

Synthesis: "Western ideas and technology will enable other societies to accumulate enough affluence and luxury to rediscover thier own cultural roots."

Non-westerners will have to decide which layers of influence to retain and which to abandon; the West will become a cosmopolitan society (like London)

Q: Under what circumstances would this come true? Are there alternative predictions?


---
Q: What has changed since this article was written in 2000?

The use of military force by the U.S.


The rise of China
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-china-to-overtake-us-as-worlds-biggest-assh,17277/

The emergence of Al Jazeera English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English

http://www.aljazeera.com/

The Rest of the West?

• His predictions are still accurate - more non-Western countries are up and coming
• When I was in Brazil and even in my interactions with people from other countries, I've noticed the influence (or the layers) that the West has over the rest of the world. It's nice to have a shared experience with people (such as a similar interest in movies or general pop culture), but I agree that other countries have the right to produce their own content instead of just consuming ours.
• I had never thought of revolutions in the West shaping or "advancing" civilization, but it's quite intuitive (at least from my democratic perspective).
• In his first argument, the thesis, he talks about the "architecture of power relationships," both economic and environmental. Basically, the West holds all the power, but he does mention that Eastern Asian countries are catching up, as if that holds all the answers. But what about all of the other countries that this mentality excludes? Where is Nicaragua, or Tanzania, or Kazakhstan?
• "Where the decisions are made makes a huge difference in the deployment of real resources" (110). I agree that we need to change this mentality. We typically only provide aid when it's beneficial or convenient for us, not the other way around, as it should be.
• On a related note, since I wasn't old enough to understand the tragedy of Princess Diana's death, and now that I can look back on how people reacted, I don't understand what the big fuss was about. Sure, she was a princess, but she's a foreign princess. She should have received just as much publicity as (or even less than) Kim Jong Il did upon his death. But for some reason, we Americans are fascinated with the royal family (I can't tell you how annoyed I was with the influx of Facebook statuses about the royal wedding). We got rid of England over 200 years ago! They're not our royal family anymore.
• When Mahbubani mentions that the West has more universities, research, publications, etc. than the East, it sounds as if he doesn't approve of it. Personally, I consider it an accomplishment that we have achieved so much in our 500 years as opposed to 2000-year-old China.
• In his second point, his anti-thesis, he talks about economic and environmental global interdependence. It couldn't be more true. Example: This "great recession" and how it's affected many foreign economies.
• We talked about terms last time (West/East). Personally, I don't appreciate 1st/3rd world terms, and frankly, they're outdated. They were used during the Cold War to denote government systems. A 2nd world doesn't even exist anymore! 1st world sounds as if we live in the Capitol of The Hunger Games (please forgive my pop culture reference). And 3rd world just sounds so derogatory, as if those countries belong in a sewer. If we must constantly need a way to classify countries, I think it's time to find something new.
• In his third point, synthesis, Mahbubani talks about the need for a "two-way street," integrating all cultures to become one massive culture. "New world" countries (Western hemisphere) already have a head start, though, since they were built by immigrants. Part of me agrees with what he says - America is already a big melting pot - but another part of me thinks that people really enjoy and appreciate their own cultures too much to participate.
  
  (I didn't want it to be so long again, but I couldn't stop writing!)

The Rest of the West

Kishore Mahbubani illustrates that despite the dramatic progress the world has made in the 19^th century, the underlying construction of power relationships has not changed significantly either in the “hard military and economic dimensions or the new soft dimensions of cultural and intellectual power”. I agree with this point, but I feel that he was slightly dismissive towards the progress the world has made. He is really only focusing on the past two centuries, so I feel that a certain amount of patience is necessary here. Two centuries is really a split second of time on the large scale.

He expresses the consequences of interdependence: we have a common stake in each other’s economic well-being, which is either good or bad. Countries are forced to pay attention to each other, essentially. On a positive note, interconnectedness has begun the process of integrating the third world into the modern world. Slowly, Mahbubani expresses, we are including third-world countries into the future. Environmentally we are interconnected by natural disasters and disease. I feel that though he is surely correct in his statement that interdependence in inevitable, growing interdependence and changing economic realities will not be the only forces reducing western domination, and I feel that he could have further illustrated his point with more examples.

Mahbubani argues that in the 21^st century, for the first time in centuries, we will have a two way street in the flow of ideas values and people. He concludes that the West will remain vibrant and vital, but as part of this continuing dynamism the West will itself undergo a drastic renovation. It will have a smaller influence of the new interdependent world. He writes, “western ideas and technology will enable other societies to accumulate enough affluence and luxury to rediscover their own cultural roots.” I agree entirely with this particular point, and I enjoy the idea that a “two-way-street” of cultures, ideas and people will be a part of both ours and the rest’s futures.

The West and the Rest

I think the author's point of view is interesting, especially toward the end, that it's the West that has to survive to swim. The last few pages, especially, ending with the last graf: "The real danger is that the West will realize too late that — like the defenders of Singapore — it has been preoccupied with old challenges while new ones have been assuming massive proportions."

It strikes me as odd that the West is being accused of looking inward when it should have been looking outward, with an impulse to "shut the doors." The drain of talent from the East to the West is well-known. The "interconnectedness" of the world that the author prophesied near the end has indeed happened, and I think the West has been a major player in that. 

- trey scott

The Rest of the West?

In this essay, Kishore Mahbubani's main goal was to send out a message of hope to the Third World, that they too can become first-class citizens, and give them motivation to prepare for the time when the West will take a rest. To illustrate this hope, Mahbubani gives us a detailed process of change that he believes will happen in the 21st century.

I especially liked his image of the West spinning several layers of influence around the globe and how he highlights the inability of most Western minds to see these layers because they have spent most of their lives above these layers. This is a privilege (because most of us don't know sufferering although our "suffering" seems to be real enough) but also a disadvantage (our ignorance to suffering makes it more difficult for us to be efficiently affected by the world around us.)

Although major economical, political, and demographic change will take time, I believe our interdependence will lead to some big changes whether we are fully equipped or not.

The West and the Rest

I'm glad that the author posted the little foreword about how most of his predictions had already come to fruition because when I was reading it, I couldn't help but think about current events.

It's interesting. Whenever I think about "the West," I automatically think of the United States - only the United States. I don't bother to think of Canada or any of the western European countries. And I think that my mind goes directly to America because I feel like everything is blamed on the US. We were once considered the world superpower, and we still are for some (primarily Third World) countries, so sometimes I feel like we are at fault with the strife and starvation that other countries face. However, we are in part responsible, at least for not putting an end to it. (Although that in and of itself is a controversial subject.) And then we have the problem of not finishing what we start.

People question the motivations of well-off countries helping poorer countries. Does this aid come from your "white man's burden," the mere goodness of your heart, or are you using me to help yourself with some political end? Then comes the question of what type of aid it will be: monetary, survival, infrastructure, or a complete government overhaul? Do we get to choose our type of government or will you force us to adopt democracy?

I appreciate that the author included that bit of how democracy doesn't necessarily mesh with all cultures, about how the only way to fix government is just to give it "good government." I do appreciate my rights to freedom and a voice (albeit a small one) in my country, but democracy isn't always the answer. It's best to just help struggling countries implement a system that works best in its own cultural circumstances.

An all-too-familiar topic covered in this chapter is immigration. Living in Texas, it's a subject you can never shake off. I particularly liked this segment: "Superior Western military technology will be useless against these invading armies because they will arrive as poor and defenceless individuals and families, moving without commanders or orders, and seeping slowly through porous borders" (56-57). He could never have a more insightful and correct prediction. Immigration is a huge problem in our country, and it's one that we seemingly cannot find an appropriate solution to. However, if we, the Western world, pick ourselves up and focus on making the world a better place for everyone, we could improve the governments of Third World countries so that their people don't have to worry about moving somewhere better.

The population boom is also a big deal in today's news. I read a book a couple years ago (I can't remember the title) which really opened my eyes to the problem. Basically, the premise of the book was that "survival of the fittest" doesn't really apply anymore. Ever since the hunter/gatherer lifestyle went out of style, and especially since modern medicine took hold, we don't have to rely nearly as much on our skills or genetics to survive this thing called life, so people don't die, according to Darwin, as much as they should. We're trying to solve the problem with birth control, but it will only work if all countries, rich and poor, have the resources.

I thought it was a little funny that the author talked about how East Asian nations have been modernizing and becoming effective global players, and how China has (had*) the possibility of becoming one as well. Well, it's no news that these days that China is possibly America's biggest competitor in being the biggest world superpower.

So far, I'm really enjoying this book!

The rest of the west

I wanted to comment on a sentence or two I found interesting in "the rest of the west."

Near the end, the author predicts: "...the West will increasingly absorb good minds from other cultures" and that that will bring about the good in the media and it can become a microcosm of the new world.

Media industries are now being more proactive in trying to bring in journalists of all races and gender. Two years ago, I applied for and did not receive an intership from the Austin American-Statesman. I found it interesting when a family friend of ours, who still works there, disclosed there were certain slots for the internship:

2 males, 2 females. One must be an African-American and one must be an Asian-American. This really isn't too surprising, and I do applaud the efforts to construct a more diverse workplace, which can lead to more diverse and more balanced coverage. But I wonder, is there a difference between making sure somebody or some group gets an opportunity and making sure somebody or some group doesn't?

- Trey Scott

About Can Asians Think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishore_Mahbubani

http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=645

http://video.answers.com/the-wests-fear-of-a-rising-asia-304230010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore

http://www.amazon.com/Can-Asians-Think-Kishore-Mahbubani/dp/9814276014/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358964298&sr=1-1&keywords=can+asians+think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

Four decades of the Cold War era -- and before that, western countries dominated in China (e.g.,   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance )

The end of the Cold War: The West won because of the strength of its social, economic, and political institutions

Losing interest in certain players/exporting western values contingent on implementation of the democratic system

Sanctions for those who can't reach the western standard

Is such a strategy questionable?

What are the consequences?

What constitutes a "good government"?

Economic development vs. Democratic system, human rights, etc.

Can countries like China practice democracy successfully?

Maybe the World is More Complex...

I will comment on both articles simultaneously. I find two major problems with both compositions.

First, especially in The West and the Rest, a clean-cut dichotomy is drawn between West and East, as if all the world were inhabited by two simple lineages of human beings. This, in my mind, is a pungently stupid simplification of our global population, and neither piece even includes some disclaimer to this fact.

Second, using this term 'the West' somehow distracts from the fact that we are speaking about a small handful of Western European lineages, and not a hemispheric empire of diverse peoples.

And now to combine my two grievances, I'll offer a brief overview of my own reality. Our species is disputably between two million and 600,000 years old, and up until less than about 1000 years ago, all peoples existed as parts of small communities united by tens of thousands of years of unique heritage. They were tribes, in effect, and in the post-colonial era we can, sadly, only see reflection of this old tribal nature in the nation-states of Europe: the Swiss got Switzerland, the English got England, the Irish got Ireland, the Poles got Poland, etc...

Had this era of nation-statehood dawned without an epoch of colonial conquest, slaughter, and reorganization, likely all the world would be divided into small nations much like Europe. North America would be split between the Iriquois, Tonkawa, Lakota, Apache, Navajo, Hopi, Karankawa, Cherokee, etc...

But, in fact, when we refer to "Western culture,' we are referring to the culture violently promoted, almost exclusively, by some Latins (Spanish and Portuguese) and Anglos (English and German). With a crazed lust for blood and power, these peoples took the world by storm over the last few centuries and removed the native states to implement mercantile colonies. This is what the 'West' is. We may think of ourselves as Americans, but we are nothing but Europeans, just a few generations off from tidal immigrations to a land that was once lushly inhabited by actual Americans.

And, conversely, when we refer to the 'East,' it must be presumed that we're referring to the Kazakhs, and Kyrgyz, and Uzbeks, and Tajiks of Central Asia, to the Arabs and Assyrians and Coptics and Phonecians of the Middle East, to the Quiche, Quecheua, Aymara, and Guarani speaking peoples of South America, to the Han Chinese, the Uhigurs, the Daxi and Nai, the Japanese and Koreans, All southeast Asian peoples, to the Polynesians and the Muslim Indonesian tribes, to the Hindi, Bengali, Nepali, Tamil, Urdu, Bodo, and Punjabi peoples of India, and even the small shreds of Navajo, Apache, and Cherokee who now live in small restricted encampments inside the European settlements in North America. So, you get the idea.

The West and the Rest

This essay highlights the many challenging aspects facing what the author believes is a frightened western world unwilling to shift into an appropriate "post-Cold War era" mindset more suited to the changing world it dealt a great hand in making. The author does this by describing how the west "has created a universe in which 'interconnectedness' will be the order of the day" and yet still "has a strong impulse to shut the doors" on the rest of the world due to a simple fear of competition.

To further illustrate this issue, the author points out several ways in which other countries have evolved to look to countries like Japan instead of the U.S. as economic examples because of the current state it has put itself in. As though to rub salt into the wound, the author also notes how the west seemingly only interacts with certain countries when it is convenient for them. I can see how this would be a common view in other countries when even here, some of us believe this is the case. While I could stand to agree with the author, it also feels that there is something missing in this argument.

The way the essay ends almost makes it feel as though it is too late for the western world or that, at the very least, it is getting uncomfortably close to that point. However, though the west might have all of the problems outlined in the essay, it is still in a position where it can do something

The West and the Rest

The West and the Rest highlighted and challenged, in depth, four key realities of the Western world and how we think about the rest of the world. The West faces serious dangers and "it cannot afford to turn its back on the Third World because the Cold War is over." A new strategy is needed, but it will take willingness to sacrifice and suffer on the Western side.

Through the history of western countries, it is clear that when times get tough, for example, an ally is unable to transform themselves at short notice to comply with our standards, we abandon without much guilt. This is also apparent in the past withdraws from Third World societies. Why are we so unwilling to hurt ourselves for the good of people we claim to care about?

I believe the answer lies in Kishore Mahbubani's realization of the nature of the Western strategy to democratize the rest of the world (and promote human rights at only the peak of a disaster). Economic development must come before we try to implement full-scale democracy. Also, we must realize that Third World progress is determined and has to be founded on "good government" and not mere democracy. The answer also lies in our leader's ability to inform the citizens of this reality.

Mahbubani highlights the painful changes and sacrifices Western societies leaders must explain when announcing the seriousness of the problems that are already on their way to our front doors. I agree and believe this is especially difficult because of our willingness to accept freedoms and liberties and quickness to deny and harshly criticize anything less than our standards of "good" that we think we deserve.

Even if some of the points made in the paper are up for debate and discussion, I don't think many would argue that there are some serious issues being buried that will undeniably show up again. Although the public can raise awareness on the severity of the long-term problems the West faces, it is up to the leaders to take control and stop implementing short-term plans and shutting the door behind them. We have been warned that our guns are pointed the wrong way; the question is: will we reassess the realities of our problems too late?

The Rest of the West

Mahbubani makes a great point that the world sees what is going around them through the eyes of the West’s media. As journalism majors, this is important because we are the gatekeepers. As of now, we are the ones who decide what will be on the agenda. We are the ones who decide what will get publicity. The fact that we adorn and over-publicize British royalty is an example of our attachment to the West, and we allow others to believe they are of higher significance.

It will be interesting to see how countries embrace interdependence. There are too many global issues now that cannot be solved by one country. Even though interdependence will be a must, I feel that there will still be a power imbalance due to continued self-interests and refusal to adopt other societies’ ideals and principals.

Mahbubani mentioned how in the future, the West will become truly cosmopolitan. With our large city hubs like NYC and our melting pot slogan, we feel that we are cosmopolitan. However, I know that I am a consumer of the West. In high schools, there is an emphasis to learn U.S. and European history and only languages like French and Spanish. But, in other countries, they are consuming their own culture and that of the West. Mahbubani mentioned how technology has allowed some countries to renew their culture.

I feel disadvantaged because I have only been consuming Western thoughts, education and media.

The West and the Rest

It doesn’t take a think-tank like Niall Ferguson to tell us that Western societies have played a dominant and influential role across the globe. Now, he says the tables are turning. The U.S. and most European countries have been quite comfortable with their global status, but despite their efforts to spread democracy and liberal markets, they otherwise close their doors for fear of losing the competitive advantage.

Ferguson said that the Cold War kept the West’s colonies and Third World countries close at hand to be used as allies and at the same time containing instability. Now that the Cold War has been over, Ferguson said that these countries’ instability has been unleashed.

The fact that 97 percent of the world’s population growth is within Third World countries demonstrates that these countries have great potential for power and influence. To me, that is huge. It no wonder, why Western countries feel threatened by immigration. Yet, if living conditions improve in these countries as well as government stability, people will not want to immigrate. Something that did not cross my mind is that through the use of technology, people across the world see how comfortable the West is living, and they want that.

Given that the nation state concept is deteriorating, the U.S., especially, is still trying to have an influence on other countries. But it’s no surprise that their influence comes when it is beneficial for them. Our push on other countries is sometimes welcomed, but not always, especially in Islamic countries. I think it especially interesting how Ferguson said that democracy comes after economic development.

It is even more interesting how Ferguson said that countries look to Japan as an example of how to enter the global market. As more countries strive to be like Japan and not remain under the label of a former colony, I wonder how the U.S. will do economically with more competitors. I also wonder how we will control such development. At the same, as more countries become competitive, will inequality continue to increase globally?  

What is quintessentially American?

What comes to mind when you think of "America"?

• Freedom
• Football/NBA/baseball
• Fast food
• Suburbs/cities
• Corporations
• etc.

About freedom:

In what way do you feel free?

How about freedom of expression at critical times?
"Critical thinking became a mark not of conscientious citizenship but of dangerous disloyalty."
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Ignoring-the-lessons-of-9-11-2163629.php

How about from a global perspective?
http://www.nationsonline.org/maps/press-freedom-worldmap-2012.jpg

About sports:

Learning to Hate Longhorn Football by Prof. Bob Jensen


Ultimately, regarding "living a good life,"

"Since the mid 20th century,  the most important contribution of the United States is to provide endless imaginations for a good life, leading other societies to follow, learn, reflect, or criticize."

What is the price we pay for such a "good life"?
Are such lifestyles sustainable?
What can we do as individuals who are lucky enough to live a good life?

Let's blog!

This blog is the platform for us to exchange interesting ideas in this seminar!

A few things to do here:

1. Respond to readings

Please post a short response to assigned readings (as early as possible but no later than 3 p.m. the day before class).

The purpose is to provoke analytical/critical/creative thinking on issues to be discussed in class.

You should first read through the assigned readings and then share your thoughts/questions/examples with the class. If you have an online example, please include the link in your post.

Please label your posts using both "your screen name" (no need to use your real name, but be consistent throughout the semester) and the TITLE of the article.

Please write in short, concise manners so that it is easy to read online and in class.

You're expected to respond to 3/4 of the assigned readings throughout the semester.

Feel free to comment on your classmates' posts.


2. This is also the platform where we share online resources (links to Web sites) to each other. 

3. If you come across any interesting/relevant news stories worthy of our attention, please post the link here. We expect everyone to share one story at least once a month (i.e., at least 3 stories throughout the semester). Briefly explain why you think the story is important.

(If you have questions about the technical side of blogging, please let me know.)

Have a wonderful semester!

Food & Culture

http://www.cbs.com/shows/mike_and_molly/video/D80BxcJO8437gXGT06Ru4grCXmYCx5Wj/mike-molly-fish-for-breakfast

http://www.cbs.com/shows/mike_and_molly/video/IsAZgbbIjd1ozgfIlwsiSGXX_tv6AdBq/mike-molly-buttery-rolls

http://www.cbs.com/shows/mike_and_molly/video/uUpg_yHNvtzaqZxoLYC_ry5syLxQHqO9/mike-molly-i-don-t-miss-it