Well, perhaps you are putting your finger on the key question: How (in your second paragraph) do you define "their" societies?
Lawry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Unfriendly workplace in the sky Lawrence deBivort wrote: > the fact remains that we are moving toward a unified world, and > we should be equally concerned with the well-being of all, and not just > that of those we look alike, or sound alike. Globalization is NOT about "the well-being of all", quite the contrary. It's about further concentrating wealth into even less hands. > Morally, if not in practice, the days of racism and nationalism are over. Don't confuse anti-globalism with racism or nationalism. It's about people having control over their own lives and societies. As long as there is no global "state" (and there never will be, at least in any manageable way), the nation-state (and its federalist sub-entities) is the only medium of self-determination. > Those who have personally benefited > from being white, Christian, colonialist and European or neo-European need > to look beyond that privilege Losing from globalization is not limited to these groups. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
