ipl-logo

Should We Embrace Or Reject The Legacies Of Historical Globalization

1621 Words7 Pages

“We all know the story of the man who sat beside the trail, and then the trail grew over, and he could never find his way again. We can never forget what has happened, but we cannot go back. Nor can we just sit beside the trail.” - Plains Cree Chief Poundmaker. What can we, in our modern day context make of this? What relevance does this have and why does it matter anyways? There are many answers to these questions, but it all depends on which angle you look at it from. Different perspectives will allow you to see the answers from different standpoints, and see what is right and what is wrong. My first interpretation of this source was what it meant metaphorically. In my perspective, it says that we have repeatedly put ourselves in such positions, …show more content…

To what extent should we embrace or reject the legacies of historical globalization? We can answer this question using the source, and my metaphorical perception, but first of all, what is historical globalization? In simple terms, it can be defined as the patterns of historical change that led to where we are today, and what we can learn from them to make decisions in the future. We have two choices to chose from the question, either to embrace the legacies, or reject them. Rejecting would mean being ignorant of the past, and disregarding it. Embracing it would mean, making decisions with knowledge of the outcomes of similar decisions in the past, and therefore making decisions based on that. I believe that we should embrace the legacies of historical globalization in the modern world, when taking important steps towards building a healthy society for the future generations to come. We will see a past incidence, relating to the topic, and then the results of choosing to either embrace or reject the legacies of historical …show more content…

Throughout history, we have seen again and again situations, where our actions, and our decisions to not take any actions, have triggered a vulnerable position, where we can't do anything to change the conditions. One example of this is the First Nations. From the source, we can say that the man is the Aboriginal tribes, and the trail is the European conquest and thirst for power, land and wealth. The Europeans came, some in search for land, and others in search for trade. Either way, both, looking to somewhat take over, and establish foreign rule on what was originally the right of the Aboriginals. The First Nations, instead of rebelling the second the Europeans set foot on their land, chose to cooperate and trade, because of the greed for new materials and knowledge. What they didn’t realize at the time, was that it was all a trap, all a game, a deception. They were never gaining anything from trading with the Europeans, they were in fact with time, becoming more and more dependant on Europeans. Had they taken action right away when the Europeans came, there would have been a higher chance that they could keep their lands for a longer time. By allowing them to enter, and soon enough, allowing them to take over their lands, they pretty much played themselves, because now how are they going to get these lustful Europeans out of their lands.

Open Document