I had posted about this before in Are They Us (not coherently perhaps), but the moot problem of globalization has been the challenges to the definition of “national identity”. British, French, American, German, and other countries with a long history of National Identity are having great clashes of thought on what national identiy (and therefore “culture”) means to them and how the newer brown, yellow, and black citizens of their countries fit.

These countries, like Singapore, are obliged to represent their citizens with a sample face from each race. And the more each country does that, the more the countries looks the same. A P G Wodehouse is no longer enough to appreciate “britishness”.

And that is what the citizens are not willing to come to terms with - the uncertainity in their culture and demography. And the “blame” goes to the immigrants who come from “outside” for this “change”. It is no surprise that we have globalization of riots. The outsiders forever remain outsiders. (India, faces the same situation with respect to Bangladeshis and Tibetians and Indians have reacted identically to the French, Australians, and British).

But, what we have not come to terms with, is that national identity is a changing phenomenon. The Amerindians could never have imagined their nation overrun with caucasians nor the elimination of their culture nor the aborigines. And everytime there is a threat to a culture, there is war.

And this is the challenge we face today. People refusing to deal with the process of creating and defining their evolved culture and clinging to the images of the past.