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

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 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

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 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.