Patrick Garner-Final Readings

In Baymens article "Postnationalism he thinks that people focus more on ideas and values. Hence he thinks the world is becoming more in depth with globalism and going against nationalism, which would be postnationalism. He describes four types of postnational solidarity. THey are spirtual, material, humanist, and life-emancipatory. The author also talks about the growth of postnationalism in europe after WW2. He also speaks of how the U.S did not adopt postnationalism and developed a form of imperialism.
In Halle's reading, "Apprehending Transnationalsim", globalization and capitalism are discussed. He discusses how trade and free market were were majorily important to globalization. Global trade is something that has been around all throughout history. He discusses that this was a huge cause of globalization. Throughout the rest of the reading the author speaks of the film industry. He talks about the differences between American Films and other films such as European Films. He then shows that American films eventually became more popular than European films when there were disputes about adding sound to the films. This is when American films took over the power.
The last article "Responses to Beoliberal Globalization in the Mercosur Region", went very in depth with globalization. It starts with defining the basic concepts; globalization and civil public space. This article also discussed the cosmopolitan democracy. The author then describes globalization effects. Such as saying that it caused societies to follow neoliberal ideology. The author also discuesses the cosmopolitan response to neoliberal ideology. In conclusion of the reading the author thinks that globalization can create new possibilities within political society but steers away from possibilities of politics. Hence, Mercosur area is probably going to be unsuccessful .

I found it interesting that American Film took over the market due to adding sound and voice. I never knew that the European market actually was a competitor with the American film industry. It is funny how being susceptible to change hindered europes film industry.

Do you think it is possible that such advancements that we do not even know of could rise up and help other film industries rise above the american film industry? COuld such events happen in the future such as WWI and the voice and sound addition to movies?

Patrick Garner-Class Videos 6/14/10

I found the last video we watched today (Disney Video) the most entertaining. It basicly discussed how Disney is such a monopoly that they almost dictate the movies, toys, clothes, etc. parents buy there childeren. They also discussed that Disney owns so many other company's such as ESPN and ABC that they never let anything bad be said about them. Most importantly the video discussed how characters are portrayed especially how women and men should be. It also discussed stereotyping races to certain characters such as the crows in Dumbo were portrayed as African Americans.

I found this extremely interesting that some parents and adults are so angry about these Disney movies. What we all have to recognize is that most of the movies such as Dumbo were made around 1930 and 1940. If I remember correctly it was 1942. This was how society was brought up back then and things that were spoken of such as the way women and men were portrayed and even different races were portrayed was ok at that time. Yes, things have changed and they are better but these movies are extremely old and if you do not want childeren to see them do not let them watch them. There are a ton of movies made after the fact that are more appropriate for our society. My other argument is that Disney was not always as big as a Monopoly as it is today. When it first started it gradually became very popular. So obviously people enjoy the products from Disney even from the beginning and the goal of any company is to make money. If your company is making money then why change your techniques that the majority of society likes so much.

As for the discussion question. Do you really think the way disney portrays things in there movies are a big problem, particularily the way some of the people on the video made such a big deal about how men and women are portrayed. I really do not think it is a big deal because in society today pretty much all movies and things of this sort portray men and women all the same way. Eventually childeren will see things of this sort and my opinion is that we cannot sugar coat everything for childeren. From the people I grew up with, the kids that lived sheltered lifestyles went crazy when they got freedom in college and did things their parents had nightmares about. In my opinion, I think all those people on that video suck the fun out of everything and need to look at the entertainment and enjoyment that many people get from Disney products. For the record, Disney has themeparks out of the country in Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. A big portion of profits come from these parks and some have even more demand than the parks in the U.S. Therefore I do not think the way some ethnicities are portrayed, such as Asian, make anyone from over there too angry.

Patrick Garner- Mix it Up Chp. 10

In Chapter 10 of Mix it Up, Grazian discusses the growth of technology. He discusses the way society has evolved with the new technology and abilities along with how it has affected industry over the years. In the very beginning of the chapter Grazian speaks of the Nigerian e-mail scam. He basicly opens up with this to show how easy it is to be taken advantage of in this day and age. He then goes into how everything with technology is quickly paced and the way we read is not as thorough as it used to be because of the way the internet is set up with breif summaries and headlines. Grazian then speaks of how people no longer communicate in person as much as we used to. It takes away the normal people skills that society used to have and many people are just so used to using portable devices. Information travels much more quickly. Although it is extremely efficient people are becoming lazy and very dependent on portable devices. Also, games such as world of War craft give people a chance to live a life as someone else and is un heard of in any other day and age.

What I found extremely interesting is that in society today we are extremely efficient with information flow and communication. However, it is scary how dependent people are on the technology we have and if we ever lose the technology we have who knows what will happen. Basicly, it is crazy that something that works so good can still have negative effects on society.

This leads me to my question. Do you think society is too dependent on the technology that we have? Will technology eventually dig a hole to deep where society cannot resort back to older ways of communication and interaction? What do you think?

Patrick Garner-Mix it Up Chapters 1-4

In "Mix it Up" by David Grazian he describes pop culture in terms of the world today or recent events. He describes exactly what pop culture means. Chapter 1 deals with music evolving throughout history. Describes how different types became popular and faded out. The author describes the different types and the people who follow these types of pop culture. Chapter 2 focuses on the functionalist prospective,which is one of the three approaches to describe pop culture. The author takes a stand point that we talk about and get hooked on people in the media to be able to talk about things in their lives instead of our own. Chapter 3 deals with the critical approach. He discusses the power of culture industrys. For example, how people become obsessed with brand names. Also, how big name brands such as coca-cola take over and sell limitless varietys of other products such as Dasani, Crush, Sweppes, etc. This is what people know and they become obsessed with certain realms of large firms. Chapter four deals with the interaction approach. This approach is how people think from what other people say. For example, someone might tell you that coca cola products are no good so you drink pepsi products. Really you do not know this but you listen to the gossip.

I found interesting chapter 3 and the power of culture industrys such as Disney. I did my industrial engineering intership at disney last spring and I know how obsessed people get with it. Because something is Disney owns people who are obsessed with it love that too. Anything with the Disney name on it will usually sale. We think it is crazy in the United States, the Disney name is even more popular around the world. I mainly found it interesting just looking at it through the critical approach.


Do you think people really follow celebrity's through the media to help make their own lives feel better? From my own perspective I do not follow celebrity gossip because half of it is nonsense. I am just wondering if anyone can agree that it is an outlet for people to talk about dumb things the celebritys do to free themselves from their private lifestyles.

Patrick Garner- Age of Empire 9-13

In the last chapters of Hobsbawm book, he speaks of the arts and sciences of the early 20th century. He first discusses the transformation of art. Upper class art was now available to the bourgeoisie. Now people had more time to sepnd with in the art realm. People bcame intersested in new hobbies such as music and writing. A lot of these new art productions took on the avante-garde taste, which was art in a way that pushed the boundaries of societal norms. Hobsbawm then discusses how science was studied and questioned very deeply. Scientists really questioned the methods that they relied on up until now. Einstein was an example of someone who really tested the limits of science. Chapter 12 discusses how european powers began to heavily stack themselves miltia wise to try and claim a position as a global power. All of this lead to WWI. He also speaks of how the United States reached a time of great prosperity. The final chapter explores the aftermath of the world war. Basicly, he speaks of the time of peace that the world had after the world war. He also discusses possible reasons for the first world war in a time of such prosperity for the world.

One of the things that really interested me was the avante-garde art period. It was intersesting that this was the first time that people became brave enough to push societal norms. I guess it was because this was the first time that people really were able to have hobbies instead of doing the bare minimum to survive in centuries past. All society had this chance now, not just the upper class. It is also interesting to me of how the Avante-Garde taste evolved up until now. I feel like all movies and music and things of this sort really push the limits constantly. It almost doesnt seem normal to not push the limits now. Maybe we have too much time on our hands now.

One of the huge debates was how WWI could happen at such a time of prosperity and economic growth. I am still unsure of this but I think this would be a good discussion in class to see what everyone thinks about the topic.

The Age of Empire (Ch. 5-8): Patrick Garner 6/2/10

Chapter 5 discussed the working class. The working class really evolved into it's own political group,The Proletariat. The reason it evolved into its own massive group like this is because many people went to work in industry since the world was quickly becoming industrialized. So many people joined this work force that it evolved into its own political group. Because this group was so large, labor unions began to develop and this is where all the working regulations were developed sucha s minimum wage.
Chapter6 discusses how nationalism became popular after all the spread of democracy. Nationalism was a way for the country to unite as one, however, this is not always a good thing. Nationalism caused a lot of violence and wars between countries. Hence started to prepare for wars and put more time into evolving there militarys. This began world war I.
Chapter 7 discusses the bourgeoisie group. These people were pretty much middle class/upper middle class. They were the first people to start spending money on cars and things of that sort without having to worry about money. They spent a lot of money on leisure things and they valued education. The bourgeosisie were the class who began participating in sports and more leisure things. The bourgeoisie class was the class that began to give women a voice. This was the start of the feminist movement and women's rights began evolving.
Chapter 8 dealt more with the feminist movement. A lot of things began to change with women. They also started working along with their husbands. This made birth rate drops because of women focusing on careers and marrying later. Many changes like this took place and women began to move up even further in the world and they began to have a voice in society.

I found it interesting that the bourgeoisie were the first to really establish recreation sports. I assume that centuries before created and developed sports especially the greeks and the romans. The author sort of made it seem like this was the first time that recreation sports were organized. I would have to disagree and say that this started much earlier, centuries before hand. On the other hand, I guess the author is just trying to make the put that the bourgeoisie had more than enough time and money on their hands to organize leisure things that the working class couldn't. The interesting thing now is that sports have developed into being controlled by the wealthy but I feel that a lot of sports are dominated by atheletes who are not neccessarily from the middle class or higher. It is amazing how things change and now everybody has a chance to do anything they set their mind too.

As my discussion point, I want to discuss how women got the chance to finally get into society and have a voice. They got to take on professional jobs because of the middle class that was established. Although, men were already on the scene and had this chance, do you think that this also opened up opportunities for a larger amount of men? So basically, I am thinking that not only did this time period open up new limits for women but it also paved the way for men who might have not neccessarily had a chance to reach new limits without the bourgeoisie class.
Does anyone agree?

THe Age of Empire Chapters 1-4_Patrick Garner

The age of Empire discusses the world during the years 1875-1914. Chapter 1 goes through the"Centerian Revolution. The author seperates the world into industrialized regions vs. thir world regions. The industrialized countries were the countries that took off with the advances in technology and economony, leaving the third world countries behind.Chapter 2 takes an in depth look at the economic changes that took place in the advanced parts of the world. The author describes how the economy shaped things at that time. The global scale of things was primarily based on wealth. Also, the rise and fall of ecomnomic cycles dramatically affected things as well.
Hobsbawm also discusses the rise of Britain but most importantly the fall of Britain when the exported goods to roughly 10 countries dominating the market. Chapter 3's main perspective deals with the newly developed World Economy. Basically, USA, Belgium, Netherlands,Italy,Germany,Great Britain, France, and Japan controlled all parts of the world outside of the Americas and Europe. The control of outher countries was mainly obtained from using an imperilistic approach. Chapter four then discusses global democracy and how it started. Many countries were new to the idea of democracy and were not quite convinced that this was the best way of handling global matters.

What interests me the most is the huge gap that technology made between the developed countries and the third world countries. It doesnt surprise me ho big the gap was from technology but it surprises me how fast the gap increased with technology. It was almost unfair how the developed countries jsut easily took over the undevloped countries. There was little the could do to stop the developed countries form taking over do to the technology. Most surprising though is that most of these third world countries are still third world countries today. What is taking them so long to catch up? You would think that they would have gotten the help to catch up. Should we be doing more to help this countries?

Global democracy is a good thing. It was tough getting countries on board with the idea back in 1875-1914. We still have that problem today,for example in the middle east. Will we ever have everyone on board with global democracy? If so, how can we convince them to join the rest of the world. It seems to me that the world is to vast to get everyone to agree and that it will never happen. This has been a topic the class explored before but I still find it a good topic especially since we have a little more knowledge with the idea now.

Before European Hegemony Part 2- Patrick Garner

In the second part of the book, Janet L. Abu-Lughod started out with describing Sindbad's "Middle Way". It was the easiest, cheapest, however the most ancient and enduring of the 3 routes between Europe and the Far East. This then leads to the talk of Muslim/christian trade and how Baghdad was situated near to the centre of the world. This gave Baghdad the tile of "the most prosperous town in the world" being in the centre at the most heavily traveled land and sea routes to the Far East. The author then speaks of how Baghdad prospered but then fell. She goes on to explain how Egypt became the clear winner between the rival routs of the Gulf vs the Red Sea. The author then goes through the forces that weakened Egypt through the centuries and eventually the fall of Egypt. After this the weakened economy was altered by the effects of the Black Death which make India trade the prime surviving source of wealth. Next we roll into how the Indian Ocean system was divided into three parts: the Arabian Sea, The Indian Ocean, and the South China see. Next, the Indian Subcontinent was described as a natural link and a divider in the sea route that connected the Mediterranean region and the middle East with China. This was explained as a great highway for migrations of peoples and cultural diffusion. However, India never became the top power because of the two greater powers on both sides of it; Musilims to the wast and Chinese to the East. China is then discussed. Apparently, the Chinese were not very interseted in trade from what the book says. Even though their position was crucial because it linked the northern overland route with the Indian Ocean route. China then withdrew from the trade market because of the huge economic collapse they had in the middle of the 15th century. This lead them to shutdown there naval exploration and trade. China would have most likely would have achieved hegemony if this would not have happened. The book finishes by going through the why's and what-ifs of the Thirteenth Century World System.

I found it interesting how China was " not interested in trade" and that it was tolerated only as a form of tribute. In the book it says that they were passive reciepients rather than active seekers of commercial gain. This is interesting because I feel as if China had a stronger desire for trade then the would have reached Hegemony. However, instead the withdrew from the trade market because of an economy meltdown. To me it does not make sense of why China was not an active seeker in the trade market.

One of the points I think that would be good to discuss is: Why China was "not interested in trade". I could not grasp a great reason for why they were against it so much. From reading the book it seems like the Chinese had a views that geared them away from the active trading perspective. What were these views and why did they push them away from active trade? All this became unclear to me.

Patrick Garner-Before European Hegemony-Part 1

In Before European Hegemony, Abu-Lughod discusses Immanuel Wallerstein's world-systems approach. She states that the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries witnessed the first modern world system. She also declares that the Mongol empire made the earlier economic system possible. The Mongol empire and successor states did this by providing trade links to exist across the Indian Ocean and the Eurasian Landmass. This is when the author claims that the economy became structured. The author also speaks of the issues that affected trade and helped trade. Essentially, she takes us through European trade when it was relatively new to international trade and speaks of how the trade developed into an essential part of the economy.

One of the things that I found interesting was that when she looks backward in time, she discusses how China would have been most likely to achieve hegemony. However, china experienced a huge economic collapse in the middle of the fifteenth century. China had to shutdown naval exploration and trade. If this had not happened China would most likely have been the primary center of the world economy for centuries. This seems extremely interesting to me because I would never had guessed that China would have ever been able to have this status. It is amazing how certain things can change history in such a big way. Especially something of this magnitude. Many things could have been extremely different for many centuries if China would have been the powerhouse of the economy.

I was also intrigued by the credit instruments that were developed in the Middle East and China. It is amazing that there were forms of credit that long ago. Do you think that this ever became a long term problem? Not neccessarily on a small scale with single merchants and traders but on a large scale with the countries themselves. Is this something that lead to disputes when huge debts became a problem? Also, The United States has significant debt to other countries still today. I wonder if any other areas of the world have this problem from that long ago? This is just something that caught my eye and I thought was interesting to possibly look into.

Patrick Garner-Economist, "Global Order and the Historical Structure of Dar al-islam""

This report again deals with the topic of globalization. This author discusses historical Dar al-Islam and it's effect on globalization. Throughout the report the author is trying to identify whether or not the historical career of Dar al-Islam teaches us anything about a basic humane global system. Dar al-Islam was discussed as only being able to function as a unit to three fundamental principles: principle of patrial control, the principle of free movement, and the principle of cultural heteroglossia.

Extra Credit:
Bamyeh argues "globalization or imperialism"? The author indicates that globalization and imperialism are not the same and that these are the two choices. This is something that caught my attention in class and throughout the reading. It seems to me the Bamyeh is saying that imperialism can be a positive force when used correctly but it could also be irrational if used incorrectly. Also, I think that what Bamyeh is trying to say is that imperialism has worked in the past and could bring together global order in the future. I think that globalization is more of a loose type of global order and that imperialism is more of a structured global order.

This question was something that interested me from the reading. However, I am still unsure of if I am thinking about it correctly. What are the main differences between Globalization and Imperialism? Also, I am not really sure If I totally agree with Bamyeh. I do not think imperialism should be a choice in the future.