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!)