Do I Hear Dueling Banjos?
I've always thought of Thomas Friedman as the Opie of newspaper columnists. His attitude towards everything, no matter how awful, is usually one of boyish optimism. War in Iraq? Gosh, could be neat. Globalization? Peachy! He constantly assumes the best about everyone and everything and this is a serious intellectual turn off for me. I personally do not think it's possible to regularly examine the world without developing a serious alcohol and/or drug addiction. As a result I've always preferred the aggressively unhealthy social critics...the unsightly ones with a five pound bag under each eye and six months to live. I need Bill Hicks and Lenny Bruce, for example. Give me the depressive fat guys with abscessed, puetrified livers and I'm completely happy. Anyway.
I was curious to see how Friedman could take something as destructive as rampant, unchecked globalization and make it sound like a whimsical day at the circus, so I started reading his new book The World Is Flat. I won't go into why it's wrong, because the Opie comment basically sums up his entire argument. Globalization is just super keen, according to Friedman. (Although I will say that I don't have a problem with globalization per se, I'm just put off by the fact that humans are behind it, the species perhaps best known for such masterworks as perpetual war, frequent genocide and the barbecue flavored chicken nugget. Wake me when the lemurs globalize and I'll reconsider my position.) What I'd rather focus on here are Friedman's comments about the region of the country where I just so happen to live: Northwest Arkansas .
There is a sub-chapter in the book entitled "Eating Sushi in Arkansas" in which Friedman relates the story of his visit to the global headquarters for Wal-Mart (or as I call it, always in a deep and ominous tone, ALL-MART). In this chapter Tommy describes that, when he stepped off the plane, he was stunned to see a sushi restaurant. A sushi restaurant in the south? He can't believe it. Being the refined thinker he is, Friedman knows that we here in the south are a bunch of hunchbacked, cave-dwelling retards who subsist entirely on a diet of fried opossum. Using his astounding powers of observation, Tommy goes on to explain how such a completely bizarre sight- a sushi restaurant in Arkansas- came to pass:
"The demand for sushi in Arkansas is not an accident. It has to do with the fact that all around Wal-Mart's offices, vendors have set up their own operations to be close to the mother ship."
In other words, it's not that southerners are simply interested in different kinds of food, just like everyone else. It's that, over the past few years, Wal-Mart has been able to successfully drag the redneck into the world community thanks to it's global connections. Nevermind that there are actually sushi restaurants all over the state, as well as fare from dozens of other countries. Never mind that these places have been around for decades for reasons totally unrelated to giant retail stores. The demand for sushi is somehow (inexplicably) due to loving, benevolent Wal-Mart. This reminds me of that scene in the movie 2001 where the monkeys slowly walk up to the monolith and start to nervously touch it, trying to figure out what it is. Friedman must think that sushi has the same effect on southerners.
"What is it, pa? What is it?!"
"I don't know, junior. Go find a stick and we'll jab at it."
And as soon as they touch the magic sushi the horribly-inbred rednecks are transformed into these suave, well-groomed elites, sipping fine wines, listening to Terry Gross on NPR and saying, "Truly my child, we have been blessed by gifts from foreign lands. Thank you globalization!"
Are you getting my point? Maybe I should be more clear: Thomas Friedman is an asshole. His arguments are premised upon a collection of massive generalizations and spurious stereotypes that wouldn't hold up in a high school debate club. If you think I'm exaggerating, here's another quote from the same chapter, and I am not making this up. In reference to Wal-Mart, Friedman asks:
"But how did so much innovative thinking- thinking that has reshaped the world's business landscape in many ways- come out of such a Li'l Abner backwater?"
What the fuck?! Li'l Abner backwater? Are you kidding me? Arkansas looks just like every other state in the US! Drive into any moderate sized town in the state and you will see Starbucks, Barnes and Nobles, McDonalds, rinse, repeat. Arkansas became a bland strip mall nightmare a long time ago, yet Friedman is still clinging to his visions of the Beverly Hillbillies. Which is amazing to me, since the entire point of his book is to explain globalization. How can he explain something this complicated if his own beliefs are informed by these completely outdated concepts? This is seriously depressing, especially since he is selling so many copies of his crappy book.
Ah, sweet catharsis. This is what I needed. Now if only I could find a way to make Friedman squeal like a piggy...I mean, come on, he does have purty lips.
I was curious to see how Friedman could take something as destructive as rampant, unchecked globalization and make it sound like a whimsical day at the circus, so I started reading his new book The World Is Flat. I won't go into why it's wrong, because the Opie comment basically sums up his entire argument. Globalization is just super keen, according to Friedman. (Although I will say that I don't have a problem with globalization per se, I'm just put off by the fact that humans are behind it, the species perhaps best known for such masterworks as perpetual war, frequent genocide and the barbecue flavored chicken nugget. Wake me when the lemurs globalize and I'll reconsider my position.) What I'd rather focus on here are Friedman's comments about the region of the country where I just so happen to live: Northwest Arkansas .
There is a sub-chapter in the book entitled "Eating Sushi in Arkansas" in which Friedman relates the story of his visit to the global headquarters for Wal-Mart (or as I call it, always in a deep and ominous tone, ALL-MART). In this chapter Tommy describes that, when he stepped off the plane, he was stunned to see a sushi restaurant. A sushi restaurant in the south? He can't believe it. Being the refined thinker he is, Friedman knows that we here in the south are a bunch of hunchbacked, cave-dwelling retards who subsist entirely on a diet of fried opossum. Using his astounding powers of observation, Tommy goes on to explain how such a completely bizarre sight- a sushi restaurant in Arkansas- came to pass:
"The demand for sushi in Arkansas is not an accident. It has to do with the fact that all around Wal-Mart's offices, vendors have set up their own operations to be close to the mother ship."
In other words, it's not that southerners are simply interested in different kinds of food, just like everyone else. It's that, over the past few years, Wal-Mart has been able to successfully drag the redneck into the world community thanks to it's global connections. Nevermind that there are actually sushi restaurants all over the state, as well as fare from dozens of other countries. Never mind that these places have been around for decades for reasons totally unrelated to giant retail stores. The demand for sushi is somehow (inexplicably) due to loving, benevolent Wal-Mart. This reminds me of that scene in the movie 2001 where the monkeys slowly walk up to the monolith and start to nervously touch it, trying to figure out what it is. Friedman must think that sushi has the same effect on southerners.
"What is it, pa? What is it?!"
"I don't know, junior. Go find a stick and we'll jab at it."
And as soon as they touch the magic sushi the horribly-inbred rednecks are transformed into these suave, well-groomed elites, sipping fine wines, listening to Terry Gross on NPR and saying, "Truly my child, we have been blessed by gifts from foreign lands. Thank you globalization!"
Are you getting my point? Maybe I should be more clear: Thomas Friedman is an asshole. His arguments are premised upon a collection of massive generalizations and spurious stereotypes that wouldn't hold up in a high school debate club. If you think I'm exaggerating, here's another quote from the same chapter, and I am not making this up. In reference to Wal-Mart, Friedman asks:
"But how did so much innovative thinking- thinking that has reshaped the world's business landscape in many ways- come out of such a Li'l Abner backwater?"
What the fuck?! Li'l Abner backwater? Are you kidding me? Arkansas looks just like every other state in the US! Drive into any moderate sized town in the state and you will see Starbucks, Barnes and Nobles, McDonalds, rinse, repeat. Arkansas became a bland strip mall nightmare a long time ago, yet Friedman is still clinging to his visions of the Beverly Hillbillies. Which is amazing to me, since the entire point of his book is to explain globalization. How can he explain something this complicated if his own beliefs are informed by these completely outdated concepts? This is seriously depressing, especially since he is selling so many copies of his crappy book.
Ah, sweet catharsis. This is what I needed. Now if only I could find a way to make Friedman squeal like a piggy...I mean, come on, he does have purty lips.
posted by Samwick @ 10:59 AM
14 Comments:
At 2:40 PM,
1138 said…
You know, usually I finish a book that I start reading.
Not this one.
At 12:53 AM,
Sheryl said…
I don't think it's as clear cut as globalization versus anti-globalization. That's kind of like when people say that the solution to overpopulation is genocide.
The issue is not whether we have global solutions to problems, but rather what those solutions are and whether there are protections in place to make sure no one gets screwed in the process.
At 8:03 AM,
Samwick said…
"usually I finish a book that I start reading. Not this one"
This is an indication of intelligence. I, for some reason, finished it, which is an indication of mental illness. It hurt.
I agree 100 percent with you, Sheryl. I'm not down with complete anti-globalization. And Friedman mentions the problems with it but he is so busy cheerleading the process that he fails to offer any realistic assessments.
Christopher: "your home state of Arkansas, it is a nice safe target"
This is definitely true, and what makes it worse it that he bases a key argument in this chapter on a total misunderstanding. He really seems to that Wal Mart exposed people to new kinds of food and, as a result, people embraced new ways. It's insane. He has no clue that sushi has been around for decades in the state for reasons totally unrelated to Wal Mart. Stereotypes are one thing, but when you base arguments on top of them it's even worse.
At 5:52 PM,
Girl With An Alibi said…
I've never heard of this book and it sounds like I can continue on my merry way in that regard. The author sounds like his research came from getting drunk with a bunch of elitist pseudo-intellectual pals and shootin' the shit about globalization glory while simultanaeously ragging on Arkansas and jerking off to a reading of Walmart's annual report. How's that for a review of book I've never read?
At 10:55 PM,
Anonymous said…
Matt wrote: "Drive into any moderate sized town in the state and you will see Starbucks, Barnes and Nobles, McDonalds, rinse, repeat."
Well, I have to say that the first time I was in the south (Oklahoma, not truly south, more wanna be Texans, but you get the point, I hope) was in the 1970's. The next time was Kentucky in the mid-80's, then Georgia from 90-93 (Savannah, a really lovely city, but too damn humid). I've since been in and out of the south (Texas, Virginia, Florida, Kentucky and Georgia) at least once a year, every year since 1993. I was born and raised in northern California, and also lived in Germany for several years and Seattle for 6 years, and have traveled in Europe, Asia Minor, the Middle East and the Far East. The point of that long litany is to say that I think I have been in enough different places around the US and the rest of the world, over a long enough period of time, to comment somewhat knowledgably on all this (sorry, maybe too long and too serious, oh well).
The truth is that the south in the 70's, 80's and even early 90's, was not nearly as cosmopolitan and "globalized" as the north east, north west or california. Over the last decade, or so, that has changed quite dramatically. Now, do I think, like Friedman, that is due entirely to Wal-Mart? No, of course not. Did Wal-Mart contribute have anything to do with changes in Arkansas? Of course they did, a company worth that size is going to create changes, just as Microsoft has caused changes in and around Seattle. Just as, before M$ was in Redmond, the city of Seattle lived and died by the success or failure of Boeing.
I haven't really considered the whole thing enough to know if I agree, or disagree, with his hypothesis. But, I do know that there has been a significant, and dramatic, change in the southern US in the last 10-15 years. It's all the more dramatic when you are only there about once a year, especially when you can compare it to what it was like to live there 15 years ago, or travel through 20 and 30 years ago.
At 11:11 PM,
Snave said…
I wasn't able to finish the last Michael Crichton book. I'm not sure about Friedman's new one. As for Wal-Mart, I refer to it as the evil Lord Waldemart, or Mall-Wart, although All-Mart is probably the best name I've heard for it yet!
At 12:03 AM,
Samwick said…
"The truth is that the south in the 70's, 80's and even early 90's, was not nearly as cosmopolitan and "globalized" as the north east, north west or california."
Hi Eric. Actually, I agree with this, and I believe it's still true today. There's no doubt that economic/social development has been slower in the south for various reasons. I was just shocked by the extent to which Friedman actually believes the south is a "Lil' Abner backwoods."
Especially in the area he visited...commericially, it has seen an enormous amount of development and population growth the last few years, yet Friedman just stepped off a plane, saw a sushi restaraunt and said, "People must eat sushi because of Wal-Mart". It was a generalization so broad that it was weird.
And there is no doubt that Wal-Mart (as well as other companies like Tyson) have been responsible for much of the development in the state. Had Friedman made that point it would have been legitimate. He was saying that without Wal-Mart this one sushi place that he saw would not have been here. He actually didn't know that these sorts of restaraunts are all over the place and have been for reasons totally unrelated to Wal-Mart.
"I haven't really considered the whole thing enough to know if I agree, or disagree, with his hypothesis."
I would really be interested in your take on the book. He proposes the removal of many barriers to globalization, but also suggests that governments need to be responsible for helping people adjust to it. I read this and was curious about how you would react to the government bit. If you end up reading the book let me know, though I suppose you'll have posts on it.
Snave: "I'm not sure about Friedman's new one"
I'm not sure that I would pay money for it, but it's worth reading just because his overview of globalization is a good one. He spends about 150 pages describing how the current process of globalization began and how specifically it operates, and it's a useful outline. The problem is that he barely touches on the negative side effects of it. At the end of the book he sort of mentions, "Oh and by the way, only about .004% of the global population are benefitting from this. The rest of you are screwed." Well, okay, that's not entirely true. He doesn't say "You're screwed", he just says you had better find a way to make yourself useful to the global economy. Anyway, I would read it but balance it out with a more critical assessment.
At 12:05 AM,
Samwick said…
Ms. Alibi: How's that for a review of book I've never read?
Your review sounds way better than mine. I may delete this post and just quote yours instead. It's only worth reading if you are intertested in globalization and are looking for a broad, accessible description of it. Friedman offers very little useful criticism, but the book works as a sort an outline. But, there are much better books out there that do this, I'll have to find their names and list them, do a post of Friedman alternatives.
At 12:43 AM,
Anonymous said…
Maybe I'll buy it and give the book a read. I tend to view "globalization" as the current buzzword to describe the effects of a trend that has been going on since about 1700 (increasingly interconnected and relatively free trade), so haven't been super interested in the recent spate of books on the topic. As far as government involvement to "help people adjust to it"? My obvious first instinct is that the idea is stupid and likely to create more trouble than it purports to fix. But, I don't know enough about what Friedman is suggesting to answer intelligently. I guess I'll have to read his book now, damnit.
At 12:51 AM,
Samwick said…
"I tend to view "globalization" as the current buzzword to describe the effects of a trend that has been going on since about 1700"
Actually Friedman agrees with this. Instead of talking simply about "globalization", he describes three globalizations. The one beginning in the 1700's is, for him, the second manifestation of it. I can't remember when specifically the first one took place. Anyway, his suggestions regarding government involvement were interesting. I'm not sure that they would work, but I hadn't heard of them before so I had been interested in how you would react.
One suggestion he makes is that governments, instead of paying welfare, offer salary expansions. They would pay people a certain percentage of the salary they are making. This way, when someone loses a job, rather than be paid for not working (unemployment) they would be motivated to get a job quickly. He quotes statistics saying that when most people change jobs they make less than they were before, so these salary expansions would make up the difference and motivate people to find new jobs more quickly.
Can't remember the specifics, but it was an unusual suggestion, interesting atleast.
At 1:14 AM,
Anonymous said…
Regardless of globalization, I think the idea of paying someone to get a job instead of paying them to not get a job makes a lot of sense. The current idea of unemployment assumes a human nature that is not real. You are paying bureaucrats and unemployed to continue unemployment and assuming that they will "do the right thing". This is plain silly, people always make the choices they view as being in their own best interest. The trick is to set things up so that their best interest and the society's best interests align. This has always been the failing of socialism, of all flavors.
At 1:18 AM,
Anonymous said…
I should point out, though, that we could actually reduce the total number of unemployed and the duration of their unemployment by simply not providing those benefits and not taxing companies in order to provide them anymore. The question is whether the impact of that would be better, or worse, than what we are doing now. I don't think anyone has seriously tried to model this, but it would be interesting if someone did (that comment is sure to get a bunch of folks panties in a twist, heh).
At 11:17 PM,
Sheryl said…
I was raised in San Antonio, Texas, and I can say without reservation that while San Antonio has more multicultural options than when I was a child, there are actually less pluralistic attitudes here these days.
I attribute this not to globalization, but conservative yanks moving down here because Bush has given Texas a bad reputation. We are now a cultural magnet for assholes.
I was at Subway Sandwiches the other day, and this manager who was in charge was such a bitch that Mom and I were openly discussing it over lunch. Apparently she was getting off her shift as we left, and what was on her car but a Connecticut license plate.
I see it again and again. Big SUVs and giant trucks with railguards on the front and East Coast license plates. Or like I saw this car loaded with conservative bumper stickers, and one said: "I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as quickly as I could." I wish people like that would return to whatever rock they came from beneath. (I didn't say that well, but you know what I mean.)
And I am not trying to say that the North is filled with conservative scumbags. What I am saying is that illlusion determines reality, and Texas has a nasty reputation which is drawing the worst America has to offer to my beautiful state that used to be controlled by Democrats.
The home of Molly Ivins, Bill Moyers, Walter Cronkite, Ann Richards, Jim Hightower, LBJ (responsible for the Civil Rights Movement.) If Walmart is responsible for the deteriorization of values in my culture, then they can also go back from whence they came. Because you can barely drive on the highway now without some asshole trying to drive you into the ditch. Texas has gotten aggressive in a way that I am not comfortable with, and I blame it on Bush.
Some will say that I blame everything on Bush, but he does promote that attitude of anti-cooperation through his unilateralism, his refusal to compromise on anything, and his selfishness in everything he does. It's ugly and pervasive.
At 10:20 AM,
Anonymous said…
... LBJ (responsible for the Civil Rights Movement.)
speaking of overgeneralizations...
Post a Comment
<< Home