History and globalization rant

I am a strong believer in the premise that human history is replete with examples of eras, cities, cultures and peoples who are in some stage of their karmic life cycle. This life cycle actually is quite similar to any of the life cycles developed by modern day marketers and scientists to apply to their products.

I think I can best explain what I am trying to say by a few examples. Bihar in India, was a seat of human achievement many, many centuries ago. If one delves into its history, which itself dates back to over 2500 years ago, it has given this world so much, in terms of Buddhism, Nalanda, the golden age of India, the Guptas, the Mauryas, Kalidas, and many other historical milestones. Without delving further into its history in the past few hundred years, its status today is that of one of the most backward states in the country, where crime, unemployment and poverty rule. The history of Bihar spans hundreds and hundreds of years.

Next is Calcutta, who's modern history spans the past few hundred years, and yet, this once glorious city, known by its occupiers as the empire's second greatest city, is now but a shell of its former past. Its once bustling streets filled with business persons, intellectuals and poets are now devoid of commerce and its intellectual capacity today, I feel, is a mockery of its label as the "cultural capital of the country".

My point is that most of the ancient worlds that exist today are in a state of poverty, intellectual bankruptcy and perennial members of the Third World. India, China, the Middle East, Africa, all these regions were where one could argue that the ascent of man began, and yet today the world is ruled by the newer nations who have written a new history for themselves, and for the others. Thus any society, in my opinion, is somewhere on that life cycle, and that could mean its past its glory days, or is just entering its glory days, or is yet to begin its glory days. Look at Latin America. It does not figure anywhere in our psyche now, except when we talk about the Incas and the Aztecs. One could argue that many of those societies were almost wiped out by the colonial invasion. Heck, they all speak Spanish and Portuguese now.

Look at Africa and how the rest of the world thinks of it today. Man originated from Africa and yet we are taught in our western dominated history that it was the British people who discovered this continent. Discovered! Children in India are taught that Vasco Da Gama "discovered" India!

Again, societies like India (now a joint society comprising hundreds of smaller societies) and China are determined to regain their glory in the world, thus showing that their life cycle is not just one rise and fall, but a wave spanning hundreds of years. Glorious many hundreds of years ago, impoverished in the colonial era, and now rising again as free nations.

I think the issue with history is that it is written by the victors, and I will again have to tie it to my call for the third world to rise and create a new world for itself and basically get rid of this Eurocentrism that has existed in our intellectual discourse and learning for so many years. I wish I knew more in depth about these concepts, but from my basic understanding of history, what eurocentrism does is it makes you believe that history begins, for example, not from Africa itself, but how the Europeans viewed Africa. Thus words such as "natives", "locals", "aliens" abound, and the concept of modernity is the lifestyle of the white western nations.

A "poor" African can have a nice comfortable home, a field which grows aplenty, be able to feed his family aplenty, have plenty of free time to roam about with kids, spend time with wife, and yet if there is no television or a motor car in his home, or if he earns less than 2 American dollars in one day, he automatically becomes an impoverished person of the world. I've often wondered how they, which i'm assuming are the World Bank or IMF etc, came up with this criteria of 2 dollars, and how its applicable to every country in the world, with its own conditions and variables and sensitivities.

In the past 200-300 years, in humankind's own opinion, we have achieved much more than the past two millenium together, in terms of tools, technology, materials created for our own comfort and pleasure etc. Now the world is getting smaller, but even this 'smaller' world is not getting any better for millions of impoverished and disenfranchised individuals residing in regions where they have no food, no healthcare, or even no right to free speech.

These past few centuries were always divided on racial lines, when the first mingling, and thence colonization of the third world began. Then it turned into an issue of economies and global trade, and this world still seems divided upon those lines. A third world nation should always be open for a first world corporation's products and services, but a person from that third world nation will not have the right to visit that very same first world. If it is indeed the economy, stupid, then the next few decades should be interesting as the third world grows stronger and makes the WASP world less relevant to its own future. I've already written about how imperative it is for the third world nations to rewrite the rules of global trade and finally make it the fair and enriching process that it was tom tommed to be.