Globalization Versus Localization

There are many elements of Globalization whose discussion and debates could fill a book. I thought I would focus on a couple key elements.

There is a false notion that Globalization will mean fair economic opportunity for all, greater efficiencies in product development and distribution and higher standards of living world-wide.

1. Fair economic opportunity for all

Global trade is one thing, but what acolytes of the globalization movement are pushing is not global trade. What they are pushing for is a global open market for the largest companies of the world to operate in. This means that well established companies that have been started decades ago by people from privileged classes and races (typically upper class white businessmen) during times where diversity was not an important social issue, nor was social justice or fair trade.

Now, when many people and nations are starting to rise out from under oppression, colonial rule, and decades of intentional economic exclusion by the privileged classes, the same people who created the unfair advantages are pressing for the opportunity for them to unfairly compete globally.

Consider it like a race. The starting pistol fires and the privileged class runs off down the track. Meanwhile, the remaining runners try to start running only to realize that someone chained their ankles to large stakes in the ground. The privileged class runners, miles ahead finally hear the concerned voices of spectators calling out that it is not fair. So they order their henchmen to go unlock the chains.

As they are running along, the privileged class, now miles and miles ahead, feeling good about themselves, think, “I am so glad I levelled the playing field for those poor people.”

This is the position many of our Indigenous nations are put under. To make matters worse, we are criticized for not winning even after the playing field was “levelled.” This is same position that all “developing” nations are placed under.

These nations, only now starting to form businesses and economies after a long time of oppression, colonialism and exclusion, now must compete against transnational corporations that have had decades to build their vast empires and resources. These same transnational corporations have received corporate welfare for decades in the forms of grants, tax breaks, incentive packages, waived fees, waived regulatory requirements, etc. The moment government or philanthropists consider offering some meagre support to young businesses from the non-privileged classes, the privileged ones rise up and cry foul.

“That’s not fair to give them welfare” they say. “They should stand or fall in a free market economy!”

Is it a noble goal? Yes. Is it fair economic opportunity for all? No.

2. Greater efficiencies in product development and distribution

The basic concept of globalization is that the processes used in producing a product and subsequently distributing will be more efficient. This, in term, will reduce overall consumer prices.

The problem with this thinking is that somebody is going to have to pay. Either front line workers will endure poor conditions with poor pay, or businesses in the middle of the supply chain will have to suffer cuts into their financial sustainability, or taxpayers will need to be put on the hook for corporate welfare. Somewhere, somebody is going to have to pay for the grossly undervalued products we buy at discount rates.

Another problem with this basic concept is that, in theory, it is supposed to make it easier to acquire the products we cannot produce domestically. In practice, we end up paying others for the right to use our own products!

An example will suffice. We have trees in Canada. We cut them and load them on trucks and trains, ship them to the U.S. where American businesses then do “value-added” work to the lumber. This lumber is then shipped back to Canada, and we buy it for a highly inflated price. Why are we not doing the work ourselves?

This phenomenon is not limited to forestry. It happens with fruits and vegetables, resources and products of all types. For many products, we export as much as we import. It is utter ridiculousness when we could be producing and prepping our own products for our own consumption. Only the excess of what we require should be exported.

Think for the moment. How can apples still be low priced, if we grow them, then transport them to another country (typically the US), transport them back and then sell them to our own people? Taxpayer funded subsidies given over to private companies as corporate welfare. This is part of the anger among the Occupy movement around North America right now.

In this day, when we are concerned with CO2 emissions, we are actually creating a worse problem through the traffic that comes from globalization.

3. Higher standards of living world-wide

The premise behind this claim is that globalization brings about increased living standards. Does it really? There are a number of key questions that need to be asked.

-          Who defines what the living standard should be?

-          How do you measure living standard?

-          How is living standards monitored?

-          Are living standards truly “one size fits all”?

Often, living standards are defined as the white, English-speaking, North American lifestyle. This lifestyle is essentially based on material wealth, consumption, individualism, and artificially high value on intangible (ie. Low practical value) knowledge economy careers. In this system, a CEO doing only a fraction of the work that the cashier working at the front end of his business empire does. In practical terms, the CEO’s job is of so little value that he should hardly be paid more than the front line employees. Yet, CEO’s often make anywhere from 10-1000 times what their front line employees make.

A computer technician is often valued in school, while teachers frown upon farmers or hunters or fishermen. Yet, in practical terms, the latter are infinitely more valuable in terms of what they produce than the former.

This is not to say there is no place for CEO’s and leaders and technicians, but it is to say that they are artificially valued above the more practical occupations.

Western lifestyle is also characterized by consumption and waste. Why should we impose such a backward value upon other peoples? Why should a developing nation be measured by how much they consume and waste? Yet, this is precisely what our current economic measurements do.

Living standards cannot be defined by the elite, nor one specific culture. They must be defined at local levels.

Globalization will not lead us to economic fairness. Localization is what is required. This is the process of making local economies strong and sustainable. It is not against global trade, but does insist that we engage global trade in a balanced manner. We trade the excess of what we produce. Why on Earth would one trade away that which one needs and then live in lack?

Global trade, without strong local economies, is an illusion built upon the backs of communities exploited for the benefit of the elite.

Ideas for change and how you can resist an unjust Global economy are here:

http://www.theeconomicsofhappiness.org/generate-alternatives-take-back-the-economy

The Economy of Language

I want to talk about the effect of language on culture and culture on economy. I have been on a linguistic and cultural journey throughout my life. As a background I will explain where I am coming from, the culture that is embedded into language, and then how that affects our ways of viewing the world around us and our approach to economic development.

My Background

My first language was French, taught to me by my father. My mother had already lost her own language, Ojibwe, by that time. When the day came to start school, it was around the era in the early 80's when the French had begun fighting in the Supreme Court for their linguistic rights. They had suffered decades of oppression and assimilatory practices (sound familiar?) by the hands of the English. French school children had to hide their books in ceiling panels when English inspectors came.

As the court case was working its way through, the hatred and aggression against the French by English people was at an al time high. My father feared that if he continued teaching me French, I would never get a job when I got older. So, well meaning, he placed me in English school and I lost everything.

Fast forward. Years later, after growing up entirely in the city, disconnected from my community, I set out on my own distancing myself from extended family and met the woman who would become my wife. I eventually immersed myself into her French language and culture, being fully accepted with wide open arms by her family. Her family became my family and her language became a beautiful gift to me.

Fast forward. Although I have spent most of my career involved in Indigenous business development, economic development and employment; it has only been in the past year I have begun having inexplicable longings to return to my home community. I say inexplicable because I have never actually lived there, only visited. Nonetheless, without going into too much detail, I have begun forming connections and friendships with my fellow Anishinaabe citizens*, reconnecting with relations, and now pursuing my native tongue.

Throughout this linguistic and cultural journey, I have learned a great deal. Through looking at 3 languages, I have seen how embedded and inseparable the culture is from the language and vice versa. Let's explore this together.

English Language and Culture

What do we know of the culture of English speakers here in Canada? With some modest generalizations I note the two common points: 1) there is one way to do things right, all others are either inferior or less effective; 2) in the mainstream English speaking world of Canada, we are taught to be bold, aggressive, and confident, sell yourself in job hunting

The English language is such that consonants are very hard sounding; bold, in-your-face. I know this after seeing how the same consonants in other languages (French, Spanish, Ojibwe) are often softer, smoother, and generally more gentle sounding. This makes sense when we consider the pervasiveness of English culture and language globally.

With English, grammar is such that there is a rigid structure in place with complex rules and syntax. This results in a rigid structure that leaves only one "correct" way of saying something. You might change the vocabulary, but the structure must always be in that one way. Anyone speaking like Yoda (Star Wars), would not be viewed as intelligently as someone with a "commanding" grasp of the English language.

One other embedded cultural element contained in the language is that of assimilation. The very language itself assimilates words of other languages, English-icizes their pronunciation, and more often than not, replaces the Indigenous language that was there first.

The English language is based on a subject-object relationship where, philosophically, they are independent of one another and the subject “does” something to the object as though the object has no role or say in the matter. In Ojibwe and many other Indigenous languages, subject and object are interdependent and not differentiable. They are not doing something “to” one another, but having an experience together.

Naturally, you can see how historic and contemporary English-speaking culture parallels these elements of the language. In fact, so embedded is it that the influence of the language construct sub-consciously reinforces specific world views and approaches to treating people. From English tendency to assimilate people, to viewing themselves and their ways as superior, to their views of dominance over the environment and the exploitation of natural resources, to their ways of interacting with one another, we can see the culture influenced by the language.

French Language and Culture

In the French language, there is also some rigid structure involved in how you say something, but with one key difference than that of the English language. In French, you have several options of how you wish to say something. I am not talking simple vocabulary switches here either, I mean complete phrase structure changes between these options.

The language is still based on subject-object, but sometimes the subject come after the object and in many cases, the phrases are indirect. With English, it is subject does something to object. In French, there are forms in that structure where object is affected by subject in such and such a way, rather than strictly "subject does action to object". Culturally, there is some acceptance of different ways of being (as there are some options of different ways of speaking a phrase). However, it is limited acceptance.

One very interesting difference is that in English, emotion is all but stripped out of the language so that English speakers are forced to use descriptor words to explain emotion. In French, emotion and romanticism is embedded. The French culture has always been noted for their romantic natures, charm, and often their seductiveness (not saying this in a negative way). These cultural tendencies are rooted in the very language itself.

There is no way to say “I like you” in French. You either LOVE them or ADORE them, nothing less. Pronouns and adjectives for people are often terms of endearment, embedded into the language. Even the method in which the words are spoken involve animated hand motions to the point that expression is a well known trait for French people.

Ojibwe Language and Culture

In Ojibwe, there is an interesting trait of the language. The word order does not matter in most cases. Rather than a rigid, “one right way,” structure, an Ojibwe speaker may use whatever order they wish. It is, in many ways, like the cultural view that one must find their own way. It is truly a liberating feeling coming from the rigidity of the English language.

Consonants in Ojibwe are ALL much softer than in English. A “g” is spoken closer to a “t” sound and a “b” closer to a “p” sound, etc. This is very much in parallel with our culture of being softer spoken, more tentative and respectful, and exhibiting gentleness. As our language is not at all “in your face,” our culture is very much about humility.

In English, we operate under the rigidity of subject + action +object. The philosophical underpinning of that structure is that subject and object are independent of one another and the subject may do as it pleases (action) to the object (ie. Environment), with or without consent.  In Ojibwe and many Indigenous languages, there is little difference between subject and object. One is not “doing” something TO the other, but rather they are sharing an experience together.

Practically, English speakers (subject, ie. Government) wish to do something (action, ie. Improve social-economic status) to Indigenous people (object, as though they are separate and apart from English speakers and no interdependency). This is why such efforts ultimately fail. The subjects are not sharing in the experience, good or bad. As a result, it is impossible to effect real change.

In that same example, from an Ojibwe linguistic and cultural perspective, the solution lies in both “subject” (ie. Government) and “object” (Indigenous people) to have a shared experience improving socio-economic status. This approach means it is not just a job some hired bureaucrat does, but rather it is a whole community (both English speaking mainstream Canadians and Indigenous people) approach that transcends a 9-5 job. It becomes something that we live. It means we are not going to talk about how bad poverty is and then go home at the end of the day to our Steak dinner in front of our 60" flat screen tv and 6.0 surround sound system.

Culture and Nationhood

I have learned a great deal from the French people, whose culture I was happily accepted into. The French in Canada also have a history of oppression and persecution at the hands of the English. They had lost the war against the British (which, sadly was about controlling a land that did not belong to either of them) and suffered as the losers of the war at the hands of the victors.

One thing I had learned was the way they had maintained their culture and nationality over time. They did this through the protection of their language above all else. Not land, not programs, not individual communities could have enabled the French in Canada to survive to the point where they are today. I have observed when French people hear another person speak French, even a complete stranger, and the instant sense of connection that they demonstrate.

I have felt this connection as well. It is these lessons that have shown me the critical importance of our Indigenous languages to protecting our cultures and identities. These identities, cultures and linguistically influenced world views are absolutely critical to cultivating the wisdom required to recreating local, national and global economies that are better integrated and interconnected with the land, the environment, people and animals.

I feel this connection again as I am in the process of learning my own native tongue.

Effect on Economic Development

Now we can see how language intrinsically influences and shapes culture (and vice versa). Together, language and culture influence and shape our world views and hence, our approach to economic development.

The mainstream approach to economic development has been driven, in large part, by the English speaking world. As a result, consciously or not, people have adopted a separated view of themselves and our environment – a philosophy of disconnect between all that exists in this universe. This has led to exploitation of resources, harmful corporate practices, even genocide (when the perpetrators view the victims as disconnected from themselves). This philosophy has led to the belief that animals and resources exist to be dominated by humans without the acknowledgement of the interconnectedness that exists.

(NOTE: this is not to say that there are not many English speaking people who have altered their perspectives on these issues. Certainly there are many who have and many who are champions for a new way of developing and approaching this world - but these shifts in perspective generally have come from education and awareness, not from intrinsic and subconscious influence of their spoken language)

The alternatives to this approach stem from our Indigenous languages. The embedded cultural world views are full of the wisdom required for the changes this world is going through. Economic Development can be done in a different way than exploitation and profit above all else. The key to finding these alternatives lie in our understanding of the world views that come from our languages.

Concluding notes:

There are gifts that can come from every language. The trouble begins when we allow for one language (any one) to dominate the others. The same global issues could have stemmed from a different language if it had gained dominance. Our global strength lies in our diversity.

Notes:

*I say citizens because our nations are not simply communities, but nations with the power of citizenship, even if our current leaders are not exercising that power.

Economic Re-visioning

It has been over a year now since the elite of the world nearly destroyed the global economy for their own greed. Recession, fears, cut-backs, debts all have become regular words in our vocabulary. In fact, sad to say, so has greed, corruption, injustice. The very people who caused the recession by nearly bankrupting the system to line their own pockets, have since been rewarded with bail out packages that they have used to give themselves bonuses in the millions of dollars.

How did this all begin? How were they allowed to do this? What implications does this have for Indigenous economy?

To start with, we need to examine the colonial economic system – that is to say, the current mainstream economic system that North America inherited from the British Empire so long ago. That system, thanks to the industrial age, set, as its foundation, efficiency, money, and material wealth. The system was designed to exploit everything and everyone around it for the singular goal of profit.

While forms of banking had existed for a long time already, they had at one time only been a type of safe storehouse. Originally, a “bank” or moneylender would hold people’s money or valuables in a secure place for safekeeping. A fee would be applied to pay for this safeguarding (ie. The salaries of guards and staff to operate the bank). A bank, originally, could only ever lend out as much money the banker him/herself actually possessed personally. Of course with a little interest and safe lending, the banker would earn some profit.

Over time, the bankers became greedier, realizing that people rarely ever withdrew ALL of their money all at once. So they began lending out money that was not theirs in order to earn even more profit. Naturally, this is somewhat a breach of trust, so the bankers appeased their clients (the depositors) by paying out a meagre interest rate for all monies deposited in the bank. Even after this, a bank could only ever lend out as much money as it actually possessed in its vault.

However, this was not enough to satisfy the greed of the private bankers. They exploited a regulatory void whereby they had been given the power to create money. They no longer have to limit their lending power to reality. Now, bankers simply, as though with magic, write into their books additional monies as revenue when someone asks for a loan and then assign that imaginary money to the borrower.

In the past the value of money was based on tangible goods and services, but today, money is rooted in debt. So, when bankers make a loan, they create debt. If that debt is paid, ONLY the bankers profit. If the banker makes a bad loan, they lose nothing. There is no risk.

After the financial meltdown, we have seen that not only do they bear no risk and no loss, they become rewarded for their work through taxpayer funded bail outs and subsequently give themselves bonuses so big that the average North American would have to work 50 full years to earn that amount.

This system of debt and infinite profit seeking is not sustainable. Such a system cannot continue indefinitely and will, at some point, reach complete system collapse. What does this mean for Indigenous economies?

Indigenous nations have always been pushed out to the margins of the mainstream economy. This was done, originally, to harm our nations. However, as we observe the intrinsic failures of the system, perhaps what was meant for bad may well be that which offers us an opportunity.

Our nations have the opportunity to create our own economies in a way that does not bring injustice to our nations. We have a way to create an economic system that does not give banks the power to enslave us and be our masters. We have an opportunity it create a system that ensures people are valued over money.

For example, who says that I must only buy clothes through a retail store? Can I not trade my services or goods that I have with one who has the skills to make clothes? I am talking a barter system here. Barter systems are already being used all over the world and even in urban North America. Barter systems cut out the needless intermediary of a bank and all of the economic leakage into the banks pockets that comes with it. The power to define the value of goods and services is restored to the people themselves. Wealth is returned to its connection to tangible goods and services rather than abstract meaningless numbers that are all too easy for white collar criminals to meddle with.

Practically, how do we do this?

As there are already many communities that have successfully applied some of the mainstream economic tools in their communities, the answer, I believe, is in balance. A blended approach of Tribal/First Nation owned businesses (that are not set-up to compete with any existing member owned business), entrepreneurs, barter exchanges, and other “out of the box” thinking. Perhaps a community owned co-op bank could be created.

Having the mix of options could allow a community to take each of these elements and emphasize those which fit best with their communal/cultural values. It allows communities to gradually shape their economies and take the best elements from a variety of options and approaches to economic development.

The resources are out there too. Google has many resources for setting up a barter exchange, for example.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/creating-community-currency-a-bartering-system.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1471533/how_to_set_up_a_bartering_exchange.html

The main element required for making practical changes to a failed economic system is not to import those failures, but to think creatively about alternatives that are fair for people.