debate continued in my head

Some writers in GR and some people in class (via debate) raised the question of whether globalization really exists as a phenomenon in the first place. In some existentialist way (think French Satre), the fact that everyone is talking about it at least makes you have to confront it on some level.

In a drawing of lots, I found myself in the pro-globalization group in our class debate. Things that we didn’t get to that I was thinking of for my group’s position include:
-If there is cultural strife in places dealing with globalization factors, it’s because the people there have new choices due to globalization. If you only knew one or two ways to go about life, there wouldn’t be so many clashes over how people in a given area all live their lives. But if you get exposed to many different viewpoints, you might find yourself wanting to explore them and then a homogenous culture shifts towards heterogeneity – and its subsequent, unavoidable strife between differences.
-One country is not solely dumping on another. Globalization entails an exchange on a variety of levels, rather than a one-way transfer.
-Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. Fundamentalists are afraid of losing power over individuals and the broader perspectives and choices they are exposed to via globalization.