Political Cartoon Analysis
Type One Written Response (A) In the very first political cartoon, the cartoonist offers us a perspective of the negative effects of globalization on the social-dimension. In the cartoon, you can see 2 men walking out of a WAL-MART, and talking about how American corporations are taking control of Canadian companies. The cartoonist isn’t offering a rejectionist view, but rather more of a anti-globalist view. One guy mentions how, “First Coors merges with Molson, and now Target wants to buy The Bay.” This is expressing the ideas of Americanization and cultural homogenization. The cartoonist is suggesting that people are losing their national identity, as more nationally-based corporations are being taken over by American-based multinationals.
…show more content…
The source is clearly trying to show how social and environmental dimensions are being affected. The writer gets across the point that globalization is threatening environmental sustainability. This point is extremely prevalent in today’s society, as the economic market is being vastly dominated by oil. This statement goes to show that we are increasing interconnectedness, and interdependence, at the expense of the earth. Although she mentions the negative environmental aspect of globalization, she mostly makes comments about the social dimension. She mentions how globalization is dislocating traditional livelihoods and local communities. The source is trying to get across that, with the introduction of multinational corporations, we lose a sense of our national identity. The food market is especially run by transnational superpowers, such as McDonald’s and Subway. This boost of American-based companies has a significant effect on our local communities, as we no longer support local cafes or businesses, but rather go to a Starbucks for coffee instead. This shows that our traditional perspective is being strongly affected. Instead of supporting our local businesses, we end up shopping at places that are situated all around the world. The source is showing the realist perspective that we are being homogenized, and losing our traditional and national …show more content…
The writer talks about how there can be more benefits if we can compromise, instead of resist. This statement is chilling as it depicts globalization as sort of a bureaucracy that we have to adhere to. It offers the perspective that with no resistance, people will gather the benefits of globalization: the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture and life. However, there are strong limits to his arguments, because it makes one wonder if there can truly be a cultural exchange where both cultures see the other as equal. This idea that we can freely exchange ideas and culture, without any ethnocentric attitudes has been proven to be false, through imperialism, and eurocentrism. Even though the writer is trying to show the positive aspects of globalization, the writer words it in a way that sounds like everyone has potential to benefit from it, however, globalization has severely affected third-world countries. Places like Ecuador have been negatively affected by globalization, because of reduced labor rates, and even child labor. Ecuador also has very poor labour rights, and on top of this has massive environmental faults due to the deforestation to create banana plantations. To say that if everyone was to stop resisting, everyone could benefit is an ignorant perspective, as the writer probably lived in a first world
The source is clearly trying to show how social and environmental dimensions are being affected. The writer gets across the point that globalization is threatening environmental sustainability. This point is extremely prevalent in today’s society, as the economic market is being vastly dominated by oil. This statement goes to show that we are increasing interconnectedness, and interdependence, at the expense of the earth. Although she mentions the negative environmental aspect of globalization, she mostly makes comments about the social dimension. She mentions how globalization is dislocating traditional livelihoods and local communities. The source is trying to get across that, with the introduction of multinational corporations, we lose a sense of our national identity. The food market is especially run by transnational superpowers, such as McDonald’s and Subway. This boost of American-based companies has a significant effect on our local communities, as we no longer support local cafes or businesses, but rather go to a Starbucks for coffee instead. This shows that our traditional perspective is being strongly affected. Instead of supporting our local businesses, we end up shopping at places that are situated all around the world. The source is showing the realist perspective that we are being homogenized, and losing our traditional and national …show more content…
The writer talks about how there can be more benefits if we can compromise, instead of resist. This statement is chilling as it depicts globalization as sort of a bureaucracy that we have to adhere to. It offers the perspective that with no resistance, people will gather the benefits of globalization: the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture and life. However, there are strong limits to his arguments, because it makes one wonder if there can truly be a cultural exchange where both cultures see the other as equal. This idea that we can freely exchange ideas and culture, without any ethnocentric attitudes has been proven to be false, through imperialism, and eurocentrism. Even though the writer is trying to show the positive aspects of globalization, the writer words it in a way that sounds like everyone has potential to benefit from it, however, globalization has severely affected third-world countries. Places like Ecuador have been negatively affected by globalization, because of reduced labor rates, and even child labor. Ecuador also has very poor labour rights, and on top of this has massive environmental faults due to the deforestation to create banana plantations. To say that if everyone was to stop resisting, everyone could benefit is an ignorant perspective, as the writer probably lived in a first world