1. How are the demographics of the United States changing at present? How might these changes effect inter-ethnic relations in the US? And how could such effects be shaped in part by the structure of city infrastructure and related public policies? Finally, contrast how order and conflict theorists would differ in their analysis of the general trends you discuss. Make sure you draw on information and arguments from both the Eitzen text and the article by Anderson titled “Cosmopolitan Canopy.”
Assimilation has been such a powerful theme in U.S. history that in the decades following the rapid industrialization, support for pluralism remained somewhat marginalized. In more recent decades, however, interest in pluralism and ethnic diversity has increased. In part because the assimilation and implicit in the conventional wisdom of many Americans has not materialized fully. Perhaps we simply have not waited long enough, but as the 21st century unfolds, distinctions among the racial minority groups in our society show few signs of disappearing, and, in fact, some members of these groups are questioning the very desirability of assimilation.
In addition, more surprising perhaps, white ethnicity maintains a stubborn persistence, although it continues to change in form and decrease in strength. This has lead to a surge in the questioning of the social structure of the United States. The American society has questioned the commonly held belief of America as a melting pot of cultures. Pluralism has become a concern a subject of debate in additional concern for many Americans. An additional reason for the growing interest in pluralism, no doubt, is the everyday reality of the increasing diversity of U.S. society, as reflected in the article “The Cosmopolitan Society”. The rapid increase in the composition of the cities in the United States has led to controversies in terms of the definition of the American cultures. Controversies over issues such as “English-only” policies, bilingual education, and welfare rights for immigrants are common and often bitter. Many Americans feel that diversity or pluralism has exceeded acceptable limits and that the unity of the nation is at risk.
Similarly, interest in pluralism and ethnicity in general has been stimulated by developments around the globe. Cultural nationalism and identity disintegrated into smaller units based on language, culture, race, and ethnicity. Recent events in India, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the former U.S.S.R., Canada, and Africa, just to mention a few, have provided dramatic and often tragic evidence of how ethnic identities and enmities can persist across decades or even centuries of submergence and suppression in larger national units.
American culture today, is the recipient of this cultural attributes. Chinese food, African hair, Indian recipe as well as business owned by foreign nationals have become commonplace in American society today.
In contemporary debates, discussions of diversity and pluralism are often couched in the language of multiculturalism, a general term for a variety of programs and ideas that stress mutual respect for all groups and for the multiple heritages that have shaped the United States. Some aspects of multiculturalism are controversial and have evoked strong opposition. In many ways, however, these debates merely echo a recurring argument about the character of American society, a debate that will be revisited throughout this text
2. Globalization is often framed in popular discourse as inevitable progress, increasing the benefits of world trade by integrating all of the world’s people into the global market. To what extent do you agree with this proposition? You must draw on at least three general arguments/facts from course readings to make your case, particularly from chapters 8 and 9 of Conflict in Order.
The concept of globalization is one of the most influential factors in the study of world relations today. Globalization is marked by integration of markets and finance, and the triumph of free the market over protection. Globalization’s growing magnitude of free trade is reflected in profitable trade of goods and services, business travel and operations of transnational and international enterprises. For instance, there has been an increased integration of countries' economies and a rise in world trade. The big question that we ask is, how has globalization affected human interdependence?
Globalization was the catchphrase of the 1990s. The intensification of globalization in the twenty first century shows that there is no indication that globalization will ebb. Technological improvement has increased the ease and speed of international communication and travel. Globalization is marked by integration of markets and finance, the triumph of free market over protectionism, and the creation of a global culture by the forces of technology. For the purpose of this paper, globalization is a reduction of political barriers between national economies resulting in a change of the state and the application of sovereignty such that no particular entity can operate on its own. This technology-enabled acceleration produces a new complexity in vulnerability that has cultural and social implications and requires adaptation across all jurisdictions. It is important to explore how people will have to adjust to the new paradigm of social life in order to exploit the opportunities that come with globalization.
Globalization makes it realistic to explore questions about human existence. For example, does this mean that society is necessary to humans to exist peacefully? Let me grapple with this thought by comparing it with the phenomenon of globalization. In my view, globalization destroys the very nurture of communal living.Today people around the globe are more connected to each other than ever before. Information and money flows more quickly than ever. Companies can now sell standardized products efficiently and effectively all over the world and this has widened the global marketplace at a faster rate. This is in essence that goods and services produced in one part of the world are increasingly available in all parts of the world as nations converge more every year. The material increase of commodities and the growth of wealth mean that people need each other less and less today. The bad thing about this concept is that the spirit of family is killed. Few people live with their parents, siblings and cousins. People die of stress and success in life is mostly compared to money. Is this what we need?
The world offers a very big market for companies to exploit. Because of globalization, firms are given unlimited opportunities across the globe that they can effectively exploit for their own benefits. The global market, when effectively used, provides a room of expansion. However, for companies to reap the benefits of globalization, they must be ready to play with the rules of the games. First, the company must be ready to meet the needs of all its customers across the world. Coca- Cola Beverage Company is perhaps a classical example of a company that has used the global market to expand its operations unrivalled with any beverage company. Establishment of the global market brand and customer base is thus one of the biggest advantages of global marketing.
Coca-Cola has achieved this status by tactful advertisements and promotions aimed at luring consumers to feel that Coca-Cola represents their own taste. Coca-Cola sells the same product worldwide but standardizes the product to meet the needs of its customers based on cultural preferences.
In short, the force of globalization is beyond measure and unavoidable for citizens, nations and continents of the world. Furthermore, in today’s era where the world is economic, political measured by pursuit of money and not pursuit of happiness. Moreover, societies that have fewer resources die in poverty. In addition, environmental conditions are at stake, globalization appears to be the only option. The increasing income equality can lead to war and destruction and the constant focus on individualism is a dangerous trend that should be discouraged.
3. The United States is generally thought of as a nation of equal opportunity, based on principles of meritocracy. Accordingly, those in poverty are often thought of as deserving of their situation. What are potential flaws with these beliefs in the context of contemporary US political economy? Draw on at least four arguments/facts from the texts in answering this question, including the articles by Barbara Ehrenreich and Melvin Tumin.
Probably the most common charge against capitalism hegemony facilitated by globalization is that it creates wealth and income inequality. This is in essence that wealth tends to accumulate in the hands of a small percentage of the population who live in affluence while neglecting those in poverty-stricken livelihoods. Claims are that this type of income inequality, even though it existed in America prior to the globalization era, has increased overtime. While the development of the welfare state and the growth of the middle class has almost succinctly eliminated the threat of the conflict between the haves and the do no t haves, many societies in the world do not have a major middle class societies. Such societies are thus prone to conflict. For example, in the third world, there are revolutions after revolutions and wars, pointing to a struggle of classes. America is not exempt to the class struggle. Barbara Ehrenbreich “Nickel and Dimed” is a classical presentation of how many American trying to make a living with low paying jobs find it hard to live.
In the article, Ehrenbreich makes a case that The Economic Policy Institute in Washington C reports that the influx of many formerly Welfare recipients into the job markets actually increases poverty instead of reducing it. While jobs role is to increase self-esteem and to encourage growth in standards of life, low paying jobs with minimum age wages makes it almost impossible for low class Americans to progress in life. The negative skepticism given to these Americans as loosers is thus misplaced and unwarranted. Finally, I agree with Max because I see the class struggle in the segmentation of the society through race, culture, class, and religion. There is nothing else except the presence of a struggle that best makes sense to me.
