In Chapter 14, Scupin describes how the globalization process affected different societies in Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean.   Again and again the pattern seems much the same -- contact, conflict, conquest, colonization, and transformation.   Commonly, with contact came slavery, the creation of a tiered society with the native inhabitants on the bottom or marginalized, religious change, the decline of the extended family, and other social changes.  In a sense, the competition between the various European powers sounds almost like a game to see who could gain the most power, control, and economic return by capturing these societies and turning them into colonies, with little regard for the people there.  Which of the examples particularly interested you (ie: the Spanish in Mesoamerica and South America; the Portuguese, British, French, Germans, and Dutch in Africa and the Caribbean) and what do you think about what happened there?

As Scupin describes, the conquests and occupations by the core powers inspired independence and nationalist movements, such as in Africa, leading to the rise of dozens of new states and the end of apartheid in South Africa.   Yet many of these countries have huge problems today, such as control by military dictatorships, widespread famine, and ethnic conflicts, sometimes resulting in genocide (such as in the massacres in Nigeria involving the Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa).  Another example is the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi recently in the news.  So what should the "core" countries do, if anything?   Now that these peripheral and semiperipheral countries are independent, should they intervene in internal struggles or struggles between tribal groups in neighboring countries?  Or by intervening are they acting like imperialists and colonizers again?   What are your opinions on these developments? 

In Chapter 15, Scupin discusses how Asia experienced a battle between colonial powers in the 1800s and 1900s, and for a time China and Southeast Asia were variously under control by the British, Dutch, and French.  Yet of all the former colonial states, the countries in Southeast Asia have survived and thrived the best.  Some of these countries, such as Singapore, Thailand, Korea, and Malaya, have even been dubbed the "Five or Seven Tigers" to show their strength as they have entered the world market.   Why do you think they did so well in adjusting, whereas other countries didn't do as well?  And how do you feel about the changes they have experienced as they have undergone modernization?

The discovery of oil played a major role in transforming the Middle Eastern countries where oil was found, such as Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and Iraq, turning them into industrial core societies, while other Middle Eastern countries are described as "peripheral societies", such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Morocco.   The chapter also discusses the importance of the Islamic religion in shaping family, marriage, and gender relationships in the Middle East.   And today, the Islamic revivalistic movements are inspiring revolutions all over the Middle East that are playing out in Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq.   Based on some of the themes in this chapter, how would you interpret what is happening in these hot spots of the world today?

In "Globalization in Theory," the emphasis is on how big companies now have to develop a global strategy to compete.  They can't just be multinational corporations, but have to use the approach of "thinking globally and acting locally."  The video also describes the five stages of globalization as companies transform themselves into "truly globalized" companies.  In turn, this development is reflected in the spread of popular culture that is very similar among the younger generation and upper income individuals who are part of this "borderless" global world.   What do you think of the developments described in the video and of this big business perspective?  

In "Media Manipulation," a very different perspective is provided on globalization today.   Here the concern is with the growth of corporate giants taking over the media and censoring or slanting the news, as well as using the synergy between different parts of the corporate empire for increased marketing and political power.   To what extent is this a cause for concern?  Are these media giants gaining too much power that threatens free speech and undermines local and regional culture with big standardized brands?   Are these developments beneficial in bringing new ideas around the world and helping to promote greater individual freedom?   Are there countervailing developments, such as the power of the Internet to give any individual a world-wide voice -- or is that likely to be undermined by corporate and media power, too?   What are your opinions about these developments?   And whose perspective do you most share -- the view presented in "Media Manipulation" or the one in "Globalization in Theory"?

In "Spatializing the City," Setha Low describes the interplay between the physical space of the park and the social processes that go on there, using two very different parks in Costa Rica -- the Parque Central and the Plaza de la Cultura -- to illustrate.   What do you think of her theory and analysis?   And can you think of how it might apply to differences in parks and public spaces today in the cities where you live or work today?   For example, in Oakland, where I live, there have been some battles over public spaces, such as one over whether a festival can continue in a park when it brings in an outside element that results in vandalism, disturbing the peace, and gun battles.   (One festival was cancelled a couple of years ago, the other was recently moved).   What sort of differences have you noticed in different parks in your community?  How have they changed over time?  And what sort of negotiations have occurred in leading to these changes?