Some recents interactions with a couple of school chums has sparked this post.
If historians were to write the history of the world during our times what would they put as the defining moment or just how will they define it? I wish I could write a book now, on what might be written in 2040.
There have been so many occurences. The Y2K phenomena, the Iraq Wars, the Internet, Communism's replacement by religious fundamentalism (after Osama does anybody symbolises it more the George Bush - the messiah of the Christian Rights). Then there has been the simultaneous emergence of the world's two biggest nations. More recently the London blasts. Will UK have a more civic response than the nerve-stricken gun-totting Eastwoodian US? ...a nervous cowboy who has been scared to his balls and is now contemplating a response - the first thing he does is to light a cigarette but his hands are shaking and succeeds on the fifth or sixth attempt. He takes out his gun and kills the first person on sight.. he goes to check out the identity of the deadbody... who care, who dies... so long as someone dies in return of someone... US creates Osama and he turns against them, US creates Saddam and he turns against them.. some think it is madness, while some conpiracy theorists are out with their version, some say it is oil, some goes beyond that... but hey the reasons for my post was different. I am tempted to opinionate on each of the above mentioned episodes and I promise I will do so...why should I leave the opportunity of sticking my finger out. . but i have to get back...
There is a recent book called "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century". I am yearning to read the same. From what little I have gathered it helps us "demystify this brave new world.......to make sense of the bewildering global scene".
We are lucky to be at the epicenter of the economic boom that has been experienced by the middle class in China and India. "Lucky" not for all the gadgets and gizmos that we can flex but for the excitement we face at each bends. Each one of us have seen drastic lifestyle changes (I still refuse to call them improvements) in our lifetime.
All this is attributed to technology convergence. Convergence is now a buzzword (there are others like Global Village, World Citizen etc.... what the #^&$& why cant I think of something more). However isnt it all leading to more and more divergence. To Converge is to "Be adjacent" or to "come together".
Sample this:
- Inspite of chat, email and mobile phone we are now further away from our parents than they were from theirs.
- I am more in touch with my friends in US, Singapore and Mumbai than with my two school chums in Bangalore.
- My next seat workmate instead of craning his neck and talking communicates by email which takes a circuitious route around the world to reach me 3-4 minutes later
As we acquire more and more knowledge (through the converged world) we develop stronger views. Hence both at work and at home I face arguments based on these diverse views. And I dont see anybody coming round and agreeing. Its fashionable first to disagree and then to force others to follow suit. Soon we we would all take over the nearby planets establish our settlements. And each of this takeover would be based on some sectarian issue or the other.
Are you guys getting it? Are my writing skills impeding what I am trying to mean? Fact is that I find most things so bloody obvious that I can rarely comprehend that others will not understand what I am trying to say. Words are failing me now. I cannot elucidate anymore or make it more comprehensible. Bear with me. Is this all sounding to gibberish?
I beg your pardon for this one moment...
2 comments:
It's the first time I'm leaving footprints on your blog site.
Firstly I must commend you for taking the pains in updating this site with new and interesting posts; or perhaps it's not a pain - its a pleasure.
Secondly, you have been urging us (Goldas) to read your postings since you conceived it and that merits a visit by us now and then. Though I occassionaly browse through it, I must admit I have only read a few of these postings. I have found all of them interesting. You definitely have the flair for writing, the penchant for observing and the audacity to reflect heavily on topics that we would rather ignore. Its as if you are in a coffee table discussion sans participants.
And finally, regarding your latest posting - that about Americans and Bush, the British and Blair, Osama and Saddam - global village and global citizen - covergence and divergence - et al; it all sums up to one thing - a well rounded discussion that leads to no conclusion. If we try to explain or justify whatever is going on in the world we'd go insane. Nevertheless these are topics that help us spice up our discussions or to start a conversation.
And just an amusing fact that might add another dimension to your posting - I read recently on the newspaper here that there was a world-wide survey on liking for Americans or things-American and Indians topped the list for being most pro-American. So be it!
Singing off from Singaland...
Your post reminded me of a conversation I had, quite a number of years ago, with this colleague of mine, a very, very erudite person. I had asked him for his views on the increasing incidents of ethnic cleansing around the world. (I think the pogrom in Sarajevo was at its height then.) He made an interesting point. He said "globalisation" and "ethnic cleansing" were two sides of the same coin. What he meant was the more the world turns into a global village, the more people feel that their racial\cultural\linguistic
identities are being threatened. And it is this feeling of insecurity that finds its vent in violence. An interesting point, and one that begs greater scrutiny I would think.
Post a Comment