Dr. Seuss: Everyone's Favorite Liberal

So I get in the same globalization argument with my father every time I spend more than 5 or 6 days straight with him. This last time, at Christmas, it was about Walmart. Anyway, so I noticed something on a friend's post on Facebook that made me start thinking about this issue. This is a perfect example for my students about what should comprise an observation essay; note to self. It mentioned Egypt's independence from Great Britain. Obviously, I started thinking about colonization. The analogy I posted is that colonization/globalization is like me going over to a friend's place and telling her that her house is now mine. When she resists, I just cut off her water supply or destroy her indoor plumbing until she's forced to leave.

I think it's good to create analogies that suggest a microcosmic situation that mirrors common macrocosmic situations. It allows us to see the global world for what it really is, in terms that hit closer to home. It also allows us to reflect upon the ridiculous nature of global politics. Obviously, it's not funny on a practical level, but conceptually, I can't help but chuckle. Why on earth would such a microcosmic situation be utterly reprehensible, but the same situation on a global scale is perfectly fine and "business as usual"? It's like murder being morally reprehensible and illegal, but war being perfectly reasonable and even necessary in the name of "Freedom" (money, oil, other such resources gained, child labor, etc.). Of course, the reason no one questions this is the same reason many of my students can't write observation essays. As long as they have their Walmart-bought toys assembled in Taiwan by 7-year-old shoeless and malnourished children, what more is there to think about? It ain't their house being invaded. Then, I must admit my own hypocrisy. Walmart's not the only bad guy. Our entire culture is founded upon this globalized economy. Hell, this computer was probably built in Taiwan. Nonetheless, there's something to be said for awareness. It's a step.

Returning to the argument between my father and me, his stand - and I don't mind calling it an uneducated one - is the same argument that has been used to indoctrinate citizens since the founding of the East India Company. "They want us there! They love us! We make their lives better! If it weren't for us, they'd have nothing!" This is the argument fabricated by colonizing forces to convince a citizenry that benefited from Indian wares that what was happening was not a moral and ethical atrocity. Because this citizenry DID benefit regarding material wealth and well being, they had no problem buying the argument hook, line and sinker. The Indians were not made SLAVES; their lives were improved because they got to WORK! With the rise of the middle class, work was the new black. Aristocracy was soooo five minutes ago.

Now, globalization is the new colonization. Rather than stealing the house, we're now just robbing it of its wealth. Rather than generously bestowing the prospect of work on the "little people" of the world, we are giving them MONEY - a whole whopping 18 cents an hour! More importantly, we're generously offering them an invite to the world of capitalism. It's not so much that they would have nothing without us; they would just be subsisting, living off of THEIR land, and providing for themselves and their families. Sure, they'd be "poor" comparatively, but they'd be autonomous. They'd be working for themselves. They would set the standards for working conditions. They wouldn't be dependent. They wouldn't be consumers. They wouldn't be abused. There's nothing wrong with being "poor" compared to the Western world. When wealth means dying of obesity, who needs it? After all, it's like Dr. Seuss said: "Nobody needs Thneeds."